Traditional Chinese Medicine guidelines for coronavirus disease 2019

Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Long COVID: Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis

Prolonged symptoms after the clearance of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, termed long COVID, are an emerging threat to the post-COVID-19 era. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions may play a significant role in the management of long COVID. The present study aimed to identify published studies on the use of CAM interventions for long COVID and provide an overview of the research status using bibliometric analysis. The present scoping review searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception until November 2021 and identified published studies on CAM interventions for long COVID. A narrative analysis of the study types and effectiveness and safety of the CAM interventions are presented and a bibliometric analysis of citation information and references of the included publications were analyzed using the Bibliometrix package for R. An electronic database search identified 16 publications (2 clinical studies and 14 study protocols of systematic reviews or clinical studies) that were included in the present study. Dyspnea or pulmonary dysfunction, quality of life, olfactory dysfunction, and psychological symptoms after COVID-19 infection were assessed in the included publications. The two clinical studies suggested that Chinese herbal medications were effective in relieving symptoms of pulmonary dysfunction. Bibliometric analysis revealed the current trend of research publication in this area was driven by study protocols written by Chinese, Korean, and Indian authors. Thus, the present scoping review and bibliometric analysis revealed that there are few studies published about the use of CAM for long COVID and long-term management for COVID-19 survivors. Original studies on CAM interventions, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, are required to actively support evidence for their use in the management of long COVID. PROSPERO registration: this trial is registered with CRD42021281526.

Use of Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) has been reported to use for symptom management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this review was to identify the overall usage prevalence of TCIM interventions for COVID-19.

Methods

Surveys on the general population and observational studies on the COVID-19 patient chart review were located in the search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in September 2021. Observational studies, such as cross-sectional studies, surveys, cohort studies and hospital-based patient case reviews, published in any language, reporting the usage of TCIM in the patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in this review. Data screening and extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. To conduct a meta-analysis of the usage prevalence of various TCIM interventions, the effect size of the proportion for each intervention was calculated with the inverse variance method. The main outcome was usage prevalence of TCIM interventions among patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

A total of 62 studies were included in this review. The overall TCIM usage prevalence was estimated to be 0.64 (95% CI 0.54–0.73). The overall prevalence did not differ between the population-based survey (0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.81) and the hospital-based patient case review (0.63, 95% CI 0.52–0.73). Statistical heterogeneity and comparatively low quality in reporting were observed, which should be cautiously considered when interpreting the results.

Conclusion

Various TCIM interventions were reported to be used with comparatively high frequency. Future international collaborative research might overcome the main limitation of this study, i.e., the heterogeneity of the included data.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278452, identifier: CRD42021278452.

Composition, Clinical Efficiency, and Mechanism of NHC-Approved “Three Chinese Medicines and Three Chinese Recipes” for COVID-19 Treatment

Traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) have been regularly prescribed to treat and prevent diseases for thousands of years in the eastern part of the Asian continent. Thus, when the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) epidemic started, TCM was officially incorporated as a strategy by the National Health Commission (NHC) for the treatment of COVID-19 infection. TCMs were used to treat COVID-19 and had a significant effect on alleviating symptoms, delaying disease progression, improving the cure rate, and reducing the mortality rate in China. Therefore, China’s National Health Commission officially approved Qingfei Paidu decoction, Xuanfei Baidu decoction, Huashi Baidu decoction, Lianhua Qingwen capsules, Jinhua Qinggan granules, and Xuebijing for COVID-19 treatment. This review evaluates and summarizes the use of TCMs against infectious diseases and the composition, clinical efficacy, and mechanisms of the NHC-approved “three Chinese medicines and three Chinese recipes” for COVID-19 treatment. The three Chinese medicines and three Chinese recipes have been demonstrated to be highly effective against COVID-19, but there is a lack of in vivo or in vitro evidence. Most of the available data related to the potential mechanism of the three Chinese medicines and three Chinese recipes is based on virtual simulation or prediction, which is acquired via molecular docking and network pharmacology analysis. These predictions have not yet been proven. Therefore, there is a need for high-quality in vivo and in vitro and clinical studies by employing new strategies and technologies such as genomics, metabolomics, and proteomics to verify the predicted mechanisms of these drug’s effects on COVID-19.

Traditional Chinese medicine in COVID-19

COVID-19 pandemic caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has spread across the globe, posing an enormous threat to public health and safety. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), in combination with Western medicine (WM), has made important and lasting contributions in the battle against COVID-19. In this review, updated clinical effects and potential mechanisms of TCM, presented in newly recognized three distinct phases of the disease, are summarized and discussed. By integrating the available clinical and preclinical evidence, the efficacies and underlying mechanisms of TCM on COVID-19, including the highly recommended three Chinese patent medicines and three Chinese medicine formulas, are described in a panorama. We hope that this comprehensive review not only provides a reference for health care professionals and the public to recognize the significant contributions of TCM for COVID-19, but also serves as an evidence-based in-depth summary and analysis to facilitate understanding the true scientific value of TCM.

Efficacy and Safety of Qingfei Paidu Decoction for Treating COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19.

Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle–Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The “Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group” was adopted for controlled pre–post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis.

Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre–post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = −4.78 days, 95% CI: −5.79 to −3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = −7.95 days, 95% CI: −14.66 to −1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = −1.51 days, 95% CI: −1.92 to −1.09), cough (MD = −1.64 days, 95% CI: −1.91 to −1.36) and chest CT (MD = −2.23 days, 95% CI: −2.46 to −2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP.

Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.

Quality of and Recommendations for Relevant Clinical Practice Guidelines for COVID-19 Management: A Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

Background: The morbidity and mortality of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are still increasing. This study aimed to assess the quality of relevant COVID-19 clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and to compare the similarities and differences between recommendations. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted using electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science) and representative guidelines repositories from December 1, 2019, to August 11, 2020 (updated to April 5, 2021), to obtain eligible CPGs. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool was used to evaluate the quality of CPGs. Four authors extracted relevant information and completed data extraction forms. All data were analyzed using R version 3.6.0 software. Results: In total, 39 CPGs were identified and the quality was not encouragingly high. The median score (interquartile range, IQR) of every domain from AGREE II for evidence-based CPGs (EB-CPGs) versus (vs.) consensus-based CPG (CB-CPGs) was 81.94% (75.00-84.72) vs. 58.33% (52.78-68.06) in scope and purpose, 59.72% (38.89-75.00) vs. 36.11% (33.33-36.11) in stakeholder involvement, 64.58% (32.29-71.88) vs. 22.92% (16.67-26.56) in rigor of development, 75.00% (52.78-86.81) vs. 52.78% (50.00-63.89) in clarity of presentation, 40.63% (22.40-62.50) vs. 20.83% (13.54-25.00) in applicability, and 58.33% (50.00-100.00) vs. 50.00% (50.00-77.08) in editorial independence, respectively. The methodological quality of EB-CPGs were significantly superior to the CB-CPGs in the majority of domains (P < 0.05). There was no agreement on diagnosis criteria of COVID-19. But a few guidelines show Remdesivir may be beneficial for the patients, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may not, and there were more consistent suggestions regarding discharge management. For instance, after discharge, isolation management and health status monitoring may be continued. Conclusions: In general, the methodological quality of EB-CPGs is greater than CB-CPGs. However, it is still required to be further improved. Besides, the consistency of COVID-19 recommendations on topics such as diagnosis criteria is different. Of them, hydroxychloroquine +/- azithromycin may be not beneficial to treat patients with COVID-19, but remdesivir may be a favorable risk-benefit in severe COVID-19 infection; isolation management and health status monitoring after discharge may be still necessary. Chemoprophylaxis, including SARS-CoV 2 vaccines and antiviral drugs of COVID-19, still require more trials to confirm this.