Xiao-Hu Sun1,2, Shuo Zhang3, Zhen Yang4, Zhen-Lin Chen5, Shi-Jun Yue1, Sai Zhang1, Yu-Ping Tang6. 1. Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Traditional Chinese Medicine Compatibility, Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xi'an, 712046, China. 2. Nanjing Bestform Pharmaceutical Technology Co., Ltd., Nanjing, 210032, China. 3. Cardiovascular Department, Guang'anmen Hospital, School of Clinical Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100029, China. 4. School of Public Health, Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xi'an, 712046, China. 5. International Programs Office, Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xi'an, 712046, China. 6. Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine for Traditional Chinese Medicine Compatibility, Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, Xi'an, 712046, China. yupingtang@sntcm.edu.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world since its outbreak, and there is no ascertained effective drug up to now. Lianhua Qingwen (LHQW) has been widely used in China and overseas Chinese, which had some advantages in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LHQW for COVID-19 by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 12 electronic databases from their establishment to October 30, 2021. Note Express 3.2.0 was used for screening of trials, and the data was independently extracted in duplicate by 2 researchers. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies were assessed by using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively, followed by data analysis using RevMan 5.3. The RCTs or retrospective studies to treat COVID-19 using LHQW were included. The intervention measures in the experimental group were LHQW alone or combined with chemical drugs (LCWC), and that in the control group were chemical drugs (CDs). Outcome measures included computed tomography (CT) recovery rate, disappearance rates of primary (fever, cough, fatigue), respiratory, gastrointestinal and other symptoms, exacerbation rate and adverse reaction. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to whether LHQW was combined with CDs and the different treatment methods in the control group. RESULTS: Nine trials with 1,152 participants with COVID-19 were included. The CT recovery rates of LHQW and LCWC were 1.36 and 1.32 times of CDs, respectively (P<0.05). Compared with CDs, LCWC remarkably increased the disappearance rates of fever, cough, fatigue, expectoration, shortness of breath, and muscle soreness (P<0.05). LHQW also obviously decreased the exacerbation rate, which was 0.45 times of CDs alone (P<0.05). There was no obvious difference between LCWC and CDs in adverse reaction (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LHQW was more suitable for treating COVID-19 patients with obvious expectoration, shortness of breath and muscle soreness. LHQW had advantages in treating COVID-19 with no obvious exacerbation. (PROSPERO No. CRD42021235937).
BACKGROUND: Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world since its outbreak, and there is no ascertained effective drug up to now. Lianhua Qingwen (LHQW) has been widely used in China and overseas Chinese, which had some advantages in the treatment of COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LHQW for COVID-19 by conducting a systematic review with meta-analysis. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in 12 electronic databases from their establishment to October 30, 2021. Note Express 3.2.0 was used for screening of trials, and the data was independently extracted in duplicate by 2 researchers. The risk of bias of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies were assessed by using the Cochrane collaboration tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively, followed by data analysis using RevMan 5.3. The RCTs or retrospective studies to treat COVID-19 using LHQW were included. The intervention measures in the experimental group were LHQW alone or combined with chemical drugs (LCWC), and that in the control group were chemical drugs (CDs). Outcome measures included computed tomography (CT) recovery rate, disappearance rates of primary (fever, cough, fatigue), respiratory, gastrointestinal and other symptoms, exacerbation rate and adverse reaction. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to whether LHQW was combined with CDs and the different treatment methods in the control group. RESULTS: Nine trials with 1,152 participants with COVID-19 were included. The CT recovery rates of LHQW and LCWC were 1.36 and 1.32 times of CDs, respectively (P<0.05). Compared with CDs, LCWC remarkably increased the disappearance rates of fever, cough, fatigue, expectoration, shortness of breath, and muscle soreness (P<0.05). LHQW also obviously decreased the exacerbation rate, which was 0.45 times of CDs alone (P<0.05). There was no obvious difference between LCWC and CDs in adverse reaction (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LHQW was more suitable for treating COVID-19 patients with obvious expectoration, shortness of breath and muscle soreness. LHQW had advantages in treating COVID-19 with no obvious exacerbation. (PROSPERO No. CRD42021235937).
Authors: Li Runfeng; Hou Yunlong; Huang Jicheng; Pan Weiqi; Ma Qinhai; Shi Yongxia; Li Chufang; Zhao Jin; Jia Zhenhua; Jiang Haiming; Zheng Kui; Huang Shuxiang; Dai Jun; Li Xiaobo; Hou Xiaotao; Wang Lin; Zhong Nanshan; Yang Zifeng Journal: Pharmacol Res Date: 2020-03-20 Impact factor: 7.658