Effectiveness of Traditional Chinese Medicine on coronavirus disease 2019 in 92 patients: a retrospective study

doi:10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20230208.001

Abstract

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the antipyretic effect of early treatment with Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients.

METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 369 patients from January 26th, 2020 to April 15th, 2020, who had been diagnosed with COVID-19. Among 92 eligible cases, 45 cases were identified as treatment group Ⅰ (n = 45) and 47 cases were identified as treatment group Ⅱ. Patients in the treatment group Ⅰ were treated with TCM herbal decoction within 5 d after admission. Patients in the treatment group Ⅱ were treated with TCM herbal decoction after the 6th admission day. The onset time of antipyretic effect, the antipyretic time, the time of negative oropharyngeal swab nucleic acid conversion, and the changes of cell count in blood routine test were compared.

RESULTS: The treatment group I showed shorter average antipyretic duration (4 vs 7 d; P<0.05), and shorter average time for polymerase chain reaction (PCR) nucleic acid test results to turn negative (7 vs 11 d; P<0.05) than the treatment group II. For patients (n = 54) with body temperature>38 ℃, patients in the treatment group I had shorter median onset time of antipyretic effect than those in the treatment group II (3 vs 4 d; P<0.05). The absolute lymphocyte (LYMPH) count and absolute eosinophil (EOS) count on the 3rd day after admission and the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio on the 6th day after admission of patients in the treatment group I were notably different from those in the treatment group II at the same time point (P <0.05). Based on Spearman's rank correlation analysis, the change of body temperature on the 3rd day after admission was positively correlated with the increase of EOS count and the increase of EOS count and LYMPH counts on the 6th day after admission (P <0.01).

CONCLUSIONS: Early TCM intervention within 5 d after hospital admission shortened the onset time of antipyretic effect and fever duration of COVID-19 patients, reduced the time required for PCR test results to turn negative. Moreover, early TCM intervention also improved the results of inflammatory markers for COVID-19 patients. LYMPH and EOS counts can be used as indicators of TCM antipyretic effect.

Key words: COVID-19, medicine, Chinese traditional, antipyretics, immune-inflammatory parameters, retrospective studies

XU Guihua, CHEN Feifei, ZHANG Wei, WU Yingen, CHEN Xiaorong, SHI Kehua, WANG Zhenwei, SHI Miaoyan, ZHANG Xing, LU Yunfei, YUAN Weian, LYU Hua, CHEN Xuan. Effectiveness of Traditional Chinese Medicine on coronavirus disease 2019 in 92 patients: a retrospective study[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2023, 43(3): 582-587.

Figures/Tables 5

References 19

[1]	Health emergency office of National Health Commission. Update on New Coronavirus pneumonia at 24 January 29th, 2022-1-30, cited 2022-03-10. Available from URL: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/xcs/yqtb/202201/a19ffdd25c32479893822addee618669.shtml.
[2]	National Health Commission of the People’s Republic of China. Protocol for Diagnosis and Treatment of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (trial 8th edition), 2020-08-18, cited 2022-03-10. Available from URL: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7653p/202008/0a7bdf12bd4b46e5bd28ca7f9a7f5e5a/files/a449a3e2e2c94d9a856d5faea2ff0f94.pdf.
[3]	Wang ZW, Chen XR, Lu YF, Chen FF, Zhang W. Clinical characteristics and therapeutic procedure for four cases with 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia receiving combined Chinese and Western medicine treatment. Biosci Trends 2020; 14: 64-8. DOI PMID
[4]	Zhang W, Wu YG, Zhang HY, Chen W, Shi KH, Wang ZW. Interpretation of TCM diagnosis and treatment plan for pneumonia infected by New Coronavirus in Shanghai city (trial edition). Shanghai Zhong Yi Yao Za Zhi 2020; 54: 1-4.
[5]	Pan F. China's deep involvement novel coronavirus pneumonia diagnosis and treatment process: interview with Professor Zhang Boli, member of the Chinese Academy of engineering and the central steering group expert group. Zhong Guo Yi Yao Dao Bao 2020; 17: 1-3.
[6]	Protocol for Diagnosis and Treatment of 2019 Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia (trial 4th edition), 2020-01-27, cited 2022-03-10, Available from URL: http://www.nhc.gov.cn/yzygj/s7653p/202001/4294563ed35b43209b31739bd0785e67.shtml.
[7]	Chen Z, Nakamura T. Statistical evidence for the usefulness of Chinese medicine in the treatment of SARS. Phytother Res 2004; 18: 592-94. PMID
[8]	Huang Di Nei Jing Su Wen. Beijing: People's Health Publishing House, 1963: 183-98.
[9]	Chen G, Yang HJ, Zhang Y, Dong S, Zhang BR, Zhai SQ. TCM innovation summarized from development of TCM fever theory. Shi Jie Zhong Yi Yao 2015; 10: 1250-3.
[10]	Liu N. Professor Liu Jingyuan’s experience in exogenous fever based on pattern differentiation. Xian Dai Zhong Yi Lin Chuang 2018; 25: 31-5.
[11]	Wang YJ, Wang L, Guo TT, Sun LP. Professor Wang Lie's academic thought on treating children's exogenous fever from "heat toxin". Zhong Guo She Qu Yi Shi 2021; 37: 66-8.
[12]	Han QR, Zhang YK, Liu MY. Research progress on antipyretic mechanism of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Zhong Yi Xue Bao 2013; 28: 1018-20.
[13]	Ma LL, Liu HM, Luo CH, et al. Fever and antipyretic supported by Traditional Chinese Medicine: a multi-pathway regulation. Front Pharmacol 2021; 12: 583279.
[14]	Zhang W, Du RH, Li B, et al. Molecular and serological investigation of 2019-nCoV infected patients: implication of multiple shedding routes. Emerg Microbes Infect 2020; 9: 386-9. DOI URL
[15]	Xu X, Yu MQ, Shen Q, et al. Analysis of inflammatory parameters and disease severity for 88 hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Wuhan China. Int J Med Sci 2020; 17: 2052-62. DOI URL
[16]	Xie GG, Ding FM, Han L, Yin DN, Lu HZ, Zhang L. The role of peripheral blood eosinophil counts in COVID-19 patients. Allergy 2020; 76: 1-12. DOI URL
[17]	Yang AP, Liu J, Tao W, Tao WQ, Li HM. The diagnostic and predictive role of NLR, d-NLR and PLR in COVID-19 patients. Int Immunopharmacol 2020; 84: 106504.
[18]	Nalbant A, Kaya T, Varim C, Selçuk Y, Tamer A, Cinemre H. Can the neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio (NLR) have a role in the diagnosis of coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19)? Revista da Associao Médica Brasileira 2020; 66: 746-51.
[19]	Liu Y, Du X, Chen J, et al. Neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio as an independent risk factor for mortality in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. J Infect 2020; 81: e6-12. DOI PMID

Baseline characteristic	Treatment group I (n = 45)	Treatment group Ⅱ (n = 47)	P value
Male [n (%)]	27 (60.00)	21 (44.68)	0.141
Age (years, mean ± SD)	48±16	54±15	0.618
Time interval between onset to admission [days, M (Q1, Q3)]	5.00 (3.00, 6.00)	4.00 (3.00, 6.00)	0.355
Armpit temperature [℃, M (Q1, Q3)]	38.00 (37.60, 38.45)	38.20 (37.80, 38.70)	0.190
Use of antibiotics [n (%)]	20 (44.44)	30 (63.83)	0.062
Use of hormones [n (%)]	12 (26.67)	21 (44.68)	0.072
Underlying diseases [n (%)]	12 (26.67)	17 (36.17)	0.327
Severity of the disease
Mild [n (%)]	2 (4.44)	0 (0.00)	0.699
Moderate [n (%)]	41 (91.11)	42 (89.36)
Severe [n (%)]	2 (4.44)	3 (6.38)
Critical [n (%)]	0 (0.00)	2 (4.26)

Baseline characteristic	Treatment group I (n = 45)	Treatment group Ⅱ (n = 47)	P value
Male [n (%)]	27 (60.00)	21 (44.68)	0.141
Age (years, mean ± SD)	48±16	54±15	0.618
Time interval between onset to admission [days, M (Q1, Q3)]	5.00 (3.00, 6.00)	4.00 (3.00, 6.00)	0.355
Armpit temperature [℃, M (Q1, Q3)]	38.00 (37.60, 38.45)	38.20 (37.80, 38.70)	0.190
Use of antibiotics [n (%)]	20 (44.44)	30 (63.83)	0.062
Use of hormones [n (%)]	12 (26.67)	21 (44.68)	0.072
Underlying diseases [n (%)]	12 (26.67)	17 (36.17)	0.327
Severity of the disease
Mild [n (%)]	2 (4.44)	0 (0.00)	0.699
Moderate [n (%)]	41 (91.11)	42 (89.36)
Severe [n (%)]	2 (4.44)	3 (6.38)
Critical [n (%)]	0 (0.00)	2 (4.26)

Item	Time	Treatment group I (n = 45)	Treatment group Ⅱ (n = 47)	P value
WBC (×10⁹/L)	Admission day	4.32 (3.74, 5.12)	4.28 (3.33, 5.66)	0.542
	3rd day	4.63 (4.01, 5.88)	4.01 (3.07, 6.03)	0.052
	6th day	4.87 (4.18, 6.17)	4.86 (3.72, 7.16)	0.873
	Discharged day	5.60 (4.70, 6.40)^a	5.58 (4.05, 6.62)^a	0.755
LYMPH (×10⁹/L)	Admission day	0.96 (0.78, 1.40)	0.85 (0.67, 1.26)	0.108
	3rd day	1.28 (0.88, 1.58)	1.03 (0.76, 1.33)^b	0.022
	6th day	1.55 (1.15, 1.96)	1.06 (0.78, 1.39)^b	<0.001
	Discharged day	1.74 (1.49, 2.18)^a	1.52 (1.21, 1.97)^ab	0.036
EOS (×10⁹/L)	Admission day	0.00 (0.00, 0.01)	0.00 (0.00, 0.01)	0.483
	3rd day	0.01 (0.00, 0.03)^b	0.00 (0.00, 0.01)^b	0.004
	6th day	0.04 (0.01, 0.08)^b	0.02 (0.00, 0.06)^b	0.016
	Discharged day	0.08 (0.06, 0.13)^a	0.09 (0.06, 0.14)^a	0.591
NLR	Admission day	2.89 (1.73, 3.80)	3.11 (2.20, 3.91)	0.341
	3rd day	2.53 (1.75, 3.52)	2.71 (1.82, 4.14)	0.426
	6th day	1.77 (1.28, 2.41) ^b	2.98 (1.99, 5.89)^b	<0.001
	Discharged day	1.84 (1.49, 2.33)^a	2.04 (1.53, 2.82)^a	0.085

Item	Time	Treatment group I (n = 45)	Treatment group Ⅱ (n = 47)	P value
WBC (×10⁹/L)	Admission day	4.32 (3.74, 5.12)	4.28 (3.33, 5.66)	0.542
	3rd day	4.63 (4.01, 5.88)	4.01 (3.07, 6.03)	0.052
	6th day	4.87 (4.18, 6.17)	4.86 (3.72, 7.16)	0.873
	Discharged day	5.60 (4.70, 6.40)^a	5.58 (4.05, 6.62)^a	0.755
LYMPH (×10⁹/L)	Admission day	0.96 (0.78, 1.40)	0.85 (0.67, 1.26)	0.108
	3rd day	1.28 (0.88, 1.58)	1.03 (0.76, 1.33)^b	0.022
	6th day	1.55 (1.15, 1.96)	1.06 (0.78, 1.39)^b	<0.001
	Discharged day	1.74 (1.49, 2.18)^a	1.52 (1.21, 1.97)^ab	0.036
EOS (×10⁹/L)	Admission day	0.00 (0.00, 0.01)	0.00 (0.00, 0.01)	0.483
	3rd day	0.01 (0.00, 0.03)^b	0.00 (0.00, 0.01)^b	0.004
	6th day	0.04 (0.01, 0.08)^b	0.02 (0.00, 0.06)^b	0.016
	Discharged day	0.08 (0.06, 0.13)^a	0.09 (0.06, 0.14)^a	0.591
NLR	Admission day	2.89 (1.73, 3.80)	3.11 (2.20, 3.91)	0.341
	3rd day	2.53 (1.75, 3.52)	2.71 (1.82, 4.14)	0.426
	6th day	1.77 (1.28, 2.41) ^b	2.98 (1.99, 5.89)^b	<0.001
	Discharged day	1.84 (1.49, 2.33)^a	2.04 (1.53, 2.82)^a	0.085

Home

Online First

Author Center

Reviewer Center

Issues

Announcement

About Us