Background: Complementary and alternative therapy is widely used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). A Chinese herbal medicine, JianPiYiFei (JPYF) II granules, have been shown to improve COPD patients' quality of life, however long-term effectiveness has not been examined. Purpose: To investigate whether long-term treatment with JPYF II granules is effective and safe for patients with stable, moderate to very severe COPD. Study design and methods: A multicentre, randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial was conducted. Eligible participants from six hospitals were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either JPYF II granules or placebo for 52 weeks. The primary outcome was the change in St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) score during treatment. Secondary outcomes included the frequency of acute exacerbations during treatment, COPD Assessment Test (CAT), 6-minute walking test (6MWT), lung function, body mass index, airflow obstruction, dyspnoea, exercise capacity (BODE) index, and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO2) at the end of treatment. Results: A total of 276 patients (138 in each group) were included in the analysis. JPYF II granules led to a significantly greater reduction in SGRQ score (-7.33 points, 95% CI -10.59 to -4.07; p < 0.0001) which reflects improved quality of life. JPYF II granules improved CAT (-3.49 points, 95% CI -5.12 to -1.86; p < 0.0001) and 6MWT (45.61 metres, 95% CI 20.26 to 70.95; p = 0.0005), compared with placebo. Acute exacerbations were less frequent with JPYF II granules than with placebo (0.87 vs. 1.34 events per patient; p = 0.0043). There were no significant differences between the groups in lung function, BODE index and SpO2. JPYF II granules were well tolerated and no significant adverse effects were noted. Conclusions: Long-term treatment with JPYF II granules is effective in moderate to very severe COPD, improving quality of life and exercise capacity, decreasing the risk of acute exacerbation, and relieving symptoms.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is still a pandemic globally, about 80% of patients infected with COVID-19 were mild and moderate. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has played a positive role in the treatment of COVID-19, with a certain number of primary studies focused on CHM in managing COVID-19 published. This study aims to systematically review the currently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies (OBs), and summarize the effectiveness and safety of CHM in the treatment of mild/moderate COVID-19 patients. Methods: We searched 9 databases up to 19 March 2022. Pairs of reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. For overall effect, we calculated the absolute risk difference (ARD) of weighted averages of different estimates, and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) system. Results: We included 35 RCTs and 24 OBs enrolling 16,580 mild/moderate patients. The certainty of evidence was very low to low. Compared with usual supportive treatments, most effect estimates of CHM treatments were consistent in direction. CHMs presented significant benefits in reducing rate of conversion to severe cases (ARD = 99 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and 131 less per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.52%) and mortality (ARD = 3 less per 1000 patients in RCTs and OBs, baseline risk: 0.40%); shortening time to symptom resolution (3.35 days in RCTs and 2.94 days in OBs), length of hospital stay (2.36 days in RCTs and 2.12 days in OBs) and time to viral clearance (2.64 days in RCTs and 4.46 days in OBs); increasing rate of nucleic acid conversion (ARD = 73 more per 1000 patients in OBs, baseline risk: 16.30%). No serious adverse reactions were found and the differences between CHM and usual supportive care were insignificant. Conclusion: Encouraging evidence showed that CHMs were beneficial in treating mild or moderate patients. CHMs have been proved to possess a safety profile that is comparable to that of usual supportive treatment alone. More rigorously designed clinical trials and mechanism studies are still warranted to further confirm the present findings.

Background: Many meta-analyses (MAs) on Chinese medicine (CM) as an adjunctive treatment for gastric cancer have been published in recent years. However, the pooled evidence reported in MAs and their methodological quality remain unknown. Therefore, we designed a study to comprehensively evaluate and summarize the current evidence of CMs for gastric cancer in published MAs. Methods: A systematic search on MAs published in English from inception to 1st September 2021 was conducted in PubMed and Embase. The AMSTAR-2 tool was used to evaluate the methodological quality of the included MAs, and the results of the quality assessment were visualized using the evidence mapping method. Stata 17/SE was used for statistical analysis (Registration number: INPLASY202190005). Results: A total of 20 MAs (16 pairwise and 4 network MAs) were included from 118 records. These MAs were published in 14 journals from 2013 to 2021, with the number of patients and trials ranging from 688 to 6,857, and from 10 to 85, respectively. A large number of CMs (e.g., AiDi, FuFangKuShen, and HuaChanSu) in combination with chemotherapy for gastric cancer were identified among the included MAs. According to the pooled results reported in MAs, when compared to chemotherapy alone, CMs in combination with chemotherapy not only improve various outcomes on efficacy (e.g., objective response rate, quality of life) but also reduce various adverse reactions (e.g., leucopenia, nausea and vomiting). Only 2 MAs were low in terms of the overall methodological quality, while the other 18 MAs were all critically low. The methodology was required to be advanced significantly, mainly involving: study protocol and registration, explanation for the inclusion of study design, list of excluded studies with justifications, adequate details of included studies, reporting on funding sources of primary studies, and evaluation of the potential impact of risk of bias. In addition, MAs that received funds support (β = 2.68; 95%CI: 0.40 to 4.96; p = 0.024) or were published in journals with higher impact factor (β = 2.81; 95%CI: 0.69 to 4.92; p = 0.012) had a higher score on the overall methodological quality in the univariate analysis, but the results were not statistically significant according to the multivariate analysis. Conclusion: Combining CMs with chemotherapy can potentially improve clinical outcomes and reduce the relevant adverse effects in patients with gastric cancer. However, the methodological quality of relevant MAs requires significant improvement, and the current evidence needs to be validated through multinational trials that are well-designed and have a large sample size.

Background: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is thought to be a potential intervention in the treatment of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19. Study design: Systematic review and meta-analysis Methods: We searched for relevant studies in the CNKI, CBM, Wanfang Data, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and other resources from their inception to April 15, 2020. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies on CHM or CHM combination therapy for COVID-19 were included. Meta-analysis was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook. Results: Overall, 19 studies with 1474 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the overall clinical effectiveness (OR = 2.67, 95% CI 1.83-3.89, I-2 = 0%), improvement in the CT scan (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.803.29, I-2 = 0%), percentage of cases turning to severe/critical (OR = 0.40, 95% CI 0.24-0.67, I-2 = 17.1%), reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) negativity rate (OR = 2.55, 95% CI 1.06-6.17, I-2 = 56.4%) and disappearance rate of symptoms (fever, cough, and fatigue) were superior by combined CHM treatment of COVID-19. However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of length of hospital stay (WMD = -0.46, 95% CI -3.87 - 2.95, I-2 = 99.5%), and rate of adverse effects (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 0.48-3.07, I-2 = 43.5%). The quality of evidence was very low to low. Conclusion: The combined treatment of COVID-19 with Chinese and Western medicine may be effective in controlling symptoms and reducing the rate of disease progression due to low quality evidence.

Chinese Herbal Medicines (CHM) are the most common interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. Systematic reviews (SRs) are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHM treatments accurately and reliably. Unfortunately, the reporting quality of SRs with CHM is not optimal, especially the reporting of CHM interventions and the rationale of why these interventions were selected. To address this problem, a group of TCM clinical experts, methodologists, epidemiologists, and editors has developed a PRISMA extension for CHM interventions (PRISMA-CHM) through a comprehensive process, including registration, literature review, consensus meeting, three-round Delphi survey, and finalization. The PRISMA checklist was extended by introducing the concept of TCM Pattern and the characteristics of CHM interventions. A total of twenty-four items (including sub-items) are included in the checklist, relating to title (1), structured summary (2), rationale (3), objectives (4), eligibility criteria (6), data items (11), synthesis of results (14, 21), additional analyses (16, 23), study characteristics (18), summary of evidence (24), and conclusions (26). Illustrative examples and explanations are also provided. The group hopes that PRISMA-CHM 2020 will improve the reporting quality of SRs of CHM.