Use of traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 and rehabilitation of COVID-19 patients: An evidence mapping study

The clinical application of traditional Chinese medicine NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NRICM101 in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study from 20 April 2021 to 8 July 2021, and evaluated the safety and outcomes (mortality, hospital stay, mechanical ventilation, oxygen support, diarrhea, serum potassium) in COVID-19 patients. Propensity score matching at a 1:2 ratio was performed to reduce confounding factors.

RESULTS

A total of 201 patients were analyzed. The experimental group (n = 67) received NRICM101 and standard care, while the control group (n = 134) received standard care alone. No significant differences were observed in mortality (10.4% vs. 14.2%), intubation (13.8% vs. 11%), time to intubation (10 vs. 11 days), mechanical ventilation days (0 vs. 9 days), or oxygen support duration (6 vs. 5 days). However, the experimental group had a shorter length of hospitalization (odds ratio = 0.12, p = 0.043) and fewer mechanical ventilation days (odds ratio = 0.068, p = 0.008) in initially severe cases, along with an increased diarrhea risk (p = 0.035).

CONCLUSION

NRICM101 did not reduce in-hospital mortality. However, it shortened the length of hospitalization and reduced mechanical ventilation days in initially severe cases. Further investigation is needed.

Intravenous immunoglobulin for treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: an evidence mapping and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical efficacy and safety of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) treatment for COVID-19 remain controversial. This study aimed to map the current status and gaps of available evidence, and conduct a meta-analysis to further investigate the benefit of IVIg in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs), primary studies with control groups, reporting on the use of IVIg in patients with COVID-19. A random-effects meta-analysis with subgroup analyses regarding study design and patient disease severity was performed. Our outcomes of interest determined by the evidence mapping, were mortality, length of hospitalization (days), length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (days), number of patients requiring mechanical ventilation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies (12 SR/MAs, 8 prospective and 14 retrospective studies). A total of 5571 hospitalized patients were involved in 22 primary studies. Random-effects meta-analyses of very low to moderate evidence showed that there was little or no difference between IVIg and standard care or placebo in reducing mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.91; 95% CI 0.78-1.06; risk difference [RD] 3.3% fewer), length of hospital (mean difference [MD] 0.37; 95% CI - 2.56, 3.31) and ICU (MD 0.36; 95% CI - 0.81, 1.53) stays, mechanical ventilation use (RR 0.92; 95% CI 0.68-1.24; RD 2.8% fewer), and adverse events (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.84-1.14; RD 0.5% fewer) of patients with COVID-19. Sensitivity analysis using a fixed-effects model indicated that IVIg may reduce mortality (RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.60-0.97), and increase length of hospital stay (MD 0.68; 95% CI 0.09-1.28).

CONCLUSION

Very low to moderate certainty of evidence indicated IVIg may not improve the clinical outcomes of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Given the discrepancy between the random- and fixed-effects model results, further large-scale and well-designed RCTs are warranted.