Objective To systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) with and without Western medicine (WM) for different severity of COVID-19. Methods CNKI, PubMed, Wanfang Database, ClinicalTrails.gov, Embase, ChiCTR and ICTRP were searched from 01 Jan, 2020 to 30 Jun, 2021. Two authors independently assessed all the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for trial inclusion, data extraction and quality assessment. Meta-analysis was conducted using Review Manager software (RevMan 5.4.1). Evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes included total effectiveness rate. Secondary outcomes included improvements in symptom improvement and total adverse event rate. Different severity of COVID-19 patients was assessed in subgroup analysis. This study was registered with INPLASY, INPLASY202210072. Results 22 high quality RCTs involving 1789 participants were included. There were no trial used CHM alone nor compare placebo or no treatment. Compared with WM, combined CHM and WM (CHM-WM) treatment showed higher total effectiveness rate, lower symptom scores of fever, cough, fatigue, dry throat and pharyngalgia, shorter mean time to viral conversion, better Computerized Tomography (CT) image and blood results, fewer total adverse events and worse conditions (P < 0.05). Subgroup analysis showed that the total effectiveness rate of combined CHM-WM group was significantly higher than WM group, especially for mild and moderate patients. No significant differences in mortality and adverse events were found between combined CHM-WM and WM treatment. No serious adverse events and long-term outcomes were reported. Conclusion Current evidence supported the therapeutic effects and safety of combined CHM-WM treatment on COVID-19, especially for patients with mild and moderate symptoms. Long-term effects of therapy are worthy in further study.

No abstract

Objective: To conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for threatened miscarriage.Data Sources: Electronic databases were searched from inception to 30 June 2022. Study Eligibility Criteria: Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the efficacy and safety of CHM or combined CHM and Western medicine (CHM-WM) and compared with other treatments for threatened miscarriage were included for analysis.Methods: Three review authors independently evaluated included studies, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data for meta-analysis (continuation of pregnancy after 28 gestational weeks, continuation of pregnancy after treatment, preterm birth, adverse maternal outcomes, neonatal death, TCM syndrome severity, β-hCG levels after treatment), sensitivity analysis (β-hCG level) and subgroup analysis (TCM syndrome severity, β-hCG level). The risk ratio and 95% confidence interval were calculated by RevMan. Certainty of the evidence was assessed according to GRADE.Results: Overall, 57 RCTs involving 5,881 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with WM alone, CHM alone showed significant higher incidence of continuation of pregnancy after 28 gestational weeks (Risk Ratio (RR) 1.11; 95% CI 1.02 to 1.21; n = 1; moderate quality of evidence), continuation of pregnancy after treatment (RR 1.30; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; n = 10; moderate quality of evidence), higher β-hCG level (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) 6.88; 95% CI 1.74 to 12.03; n = 4) and lower Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) syndrome severity (SMD −2.94; 95% CI −4.27 to −1.61; n = 2). Compared with WM alone, combined CHM-WM showed significant higher incidence of continuation of pregnancy after 28 gestational weeks (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.27; n = 15; moderate quality of evidence), continuation of pregnancy after treatment (RR 1.19; 95% CI 1.16 to 1.23; n = 41; moderate quality of evidence), higher β-hCG level (SMD 2.27; 95% CI 1.72 to 2.83; n = 37) and lower TCM syndrome severity (SMD −1.74; 95% CI −2.21 to −1.27; n = 15). No significant differences in reducing the adverse maternal outcomes and neonatal death were found in combined CHM-WM compared with WM alone (RR 0.97; 95% CI 0.62 to 1.52; n = 8; RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.12 to 1.21; n = 2).Conclusion: Current evidence supported CHM could be a potential treatment for threatened miscarriage. However, results should be interpreted with caution considering the low to moderate quality of the available evidence.Systematic Review Registration: [https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2022-6-0107/], identifier [INPLASY20220107].