Search

Background: There is currently no effective treatment against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The optimal selection of interventions targeting the virus is unknown. Therefore, evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to support specific treatment against COVID-19 is urgently needed. The use of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) might have a role in the treatment and symptomatic management of patients with COVID-19. It was aimed at providing an overview of the available evidence and ongoing trials concerning the effects of CHMs for the treatment of COVID-19. Methods: This is a narrative review of relevant studies. Searches were conducted to identify documents published till April 22, 2020. Electronic databases, evidence-based collections, websites of relevant organizations, and trial registries were consulted. Results: A total of 25 guidelines on the treatment of patients with COVID-19 were identified. Four guidelines provided recommendations on the use of CHMs; these guidelines were developed in China and South Korea and were based on the consensus of experts exclusively. The remaining 21 guidelines provided no guidance on CHMs. No finished RCTs of CHMs for the treatment of patients with COVID-19 was found. According to the evidence evaluated in this review, a Cochrane review of CHMs for severe acute respiratory syndrome and five uncontrolled observational studies of the effects of CHMs in patients with COVID-19, the effects of CHMs for COVID-19 are unknown. A total of 52 ongoing clinical trials of CHM interventions for the treatment of COVID-19 were found. These trials will be carried out mostly in China (n = 51). Forty (77%) of the ongoing trials will be randomized, whereas 12 (23%) have an unclear sequence generation procedure. Forty-seven trials (90%) will have a sample size <400 participants. Conclusions: To the authors' knowledge, only the Chinese and the South Korean guidelines recommend CHMs as a treatment option for patients with COVID-19. These guidelines base their recommendations on the consensus of experts. Clinical guidelines or health authorities from other countries do not provide advice on CHMs. Due to the absence of RCT, there is currently no reliable evidence on the effects of any specific CHM intervention for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. A high number of clinical trials of different herbal products are being currently conducted in China. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is an integral part of mainstream medicine in China. Due to its worldwide use, potential impact on healthcare and opportunities for new drug development, TCM is also of great international interest. Recently, a new era for modernisation of TCM was launched with the successful completion of the Good Practice in Traditional Chinese Medicine Research in the Post-genomic Era (GP-TCM) project, the European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) coordination action on TCM research. This 3.5-year project that involved inputs from over 200 scientists resulted in the production of 20 editorials and in-depth reviews on different aspects of TCM that were published in a special issue of Journal of Ethnopharmacology (2012; volume 140, issue 3). In this narrative review, we aim to summarise the findings of the FP7 GP-TCM project and highlight the relevance of TCM to modern medicine within a historical and international context. Advances in TCM research since the 1950s can be characterised into three phases: Phase I (1950s-1970s) was fundamental for developing TCM higher education, research and hospital networks in China; Phase II (1980s-2000s) was critical for developing legal, economic and scientific foundations and international networks for TCM; and Phase III (2011 onwards) is concentrating on consolidating the scientific basis and clinical practice of TCM through interdisciplinary, interregional and intersectoral collaborations. Taking into account the quality and safety requirements newly imposed by a globalised market, we especially highlight the scientific evidence behind TCM, update the most important milestones and pitfalls, and propose integrity, integration and innovation as key principles for further modernisation of TCM. These principles will serve as foundations for further research and development of TCM, and for its future integration into tomorrow's medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Medicinal plants are the primary ingredients of Tibetan medicinal formulae. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the spectrum of medical complaints treated by a Tibetan doctor in Sikkim and Nepal, and to determine which plants the doctor used most frequently to treat these complaints. Design: Two prospective observational studies were carried out at two locations (Sikkim and Nepal). Patients who visited the participating Tibetan doctor were included consecutively. Medical symptoms, Tibetan syndrome diagnoses, and treatments were documented. The most frequently used plants were identified retrospectively. Results: A total of 238 patients were included (Sikkim: n = 135, 62.2% women, mean age 33.9 3.4 years; Nepal: n = 103, 54.4% men, mean age 42.9 2.4 years). The most frequent medical complaint was pain (Sikkim: 46% of patients; Nepal: 51% of patients). The most frequent Tibetan syndrome diagnosis was Bad-kan in Sikkim (20.7% of patients; a cold disorder affecting the lower body) and a combination of Bad-kan and mKhris-pa in Nepal (28.2%; a mixed cold/hot disorder affecting the lower and middle body). A total of 71 different Tibetan medicines were prescribed, including 138 different plants. Of these 138 plants, 81 typically grow at high and medium altitudes, and 57 grow in tropical and subtropical areas. Nevertheless, most (93%) of the prescribed formulae contained high-altitude plants. Conclusions: For the first time, information on medical complaints and treatments has been evaluated systematically for patients receiving treatment from a Tibetan doctor. These data provide a good foundation for further research on Tibetan medicine. Further studies should go a step farther and include follow-up data and information about the effectiveness and safety of Tibetan medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Chinese medicine modalities, including acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), have been used as palliative interventions among cancer patients. More research should be conducted to confirm their effectiveness.Objectives: The objective of this study was to prioritize Chinese medicine clinical research questions for cancer palliative care.Methods: Twelve international experts, including physicians, Chinese medicine practitioners, nurses, and clinical research methodologists (n = 3 from each category), from Asia, North America, Australia, and Europe participated in a two-round Delphi survey for prioritizing 29 research questions identified from existing systematic reviews. The experts were asked to 1) rate clinical importance of answering the questions on a nine-point Likert scale; 2) provide qualitative comments on their ratings; and 3) suggest outcome measurement approaches.Results: Eight research priorities reached positive consensus after the two-round Delphi survey. Six of the priorities focused on acupuncture and related therapies, of which median ratings on importance ranged from 7.0 to 8.0 (interquartile range: 1.00 to 2.50), and the percentage agreement ranged from 75.0% to 91.7%. The remaining two priorities related to CHM, with median ratings ranged from 7.0 to 8.0 (interquartile range: 1.00 to 1.50) and percentage agreement ranged from 75.0% to 83.3%. Neither positive nor negative consensus was established among the remaining 21 questions.Conclusion: The findings will inform rational allocation of scarce research funding for evaluating the effectiveness of Chinese medicine for cancer palliative care, especially on acupuncture and related therapies. Further research on herb safety and herb-drug interaction should be performed before conducting international trials on CHM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To explore the current practice of stakeholder engagement in clinical trials and its evaluation in North America (USA and Canada), DACH countries (Germany, Austria and Switzerland) and China. Participants & methods: We conducted a web-based, anonymous, international, cross-sectional online survey for clinical researchers. Data were analyzed using descriptive and explorative statistical analysis including analysis of variance and analysis of covariance. Results: Stakeholder engagement is more prominent and higher accepted among researchers in North America. Researchers in DACH countries have less knowledge of the stakeholder engagement method and are less likely to apply it. Conclusion: Stakeholder engagement is perceived very differently among participants from DACH countries, North America and China. For a broader acceptance and implementation institutional support and motivational conditions might be needed.