Search

Background. Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is an autoimmune disease characterized by multijoint swelling, pain, and destruction of the synovial joints. Treatments are available but new therapies are still required. One source of new therapies is natural products, including herbs used in traditional medicines. In China and neighbouring countries, natural products have been used throughout recorded history and are still in use for RA and its symptoms. This study used text-mining of a database of classical Chinese medical books to identify candidates for future clinical and experimental investigations of therapeutics for RA. Methods. The database Encyclopaedia of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Zhong Hua Yi Dian) includes the full texts of over 1,150 classical books. Eight traditional terms were searched. All citations were assessed for relevance to RA. Results and Conclusions. After removal of duplications, 3,174 citations were considered. After applying the exclusion and inclusion criteria, 548 citations of traditional formulas were included. These derived from 138 books written from 206 CE to 1948. These formulas included 5,018 ingredients (mean, 9 ingredients/formula) comprising 243 different natural products. When these text-mining results were compared to the 18 formulas recommended in a modern Chinese Medicine clinical practice guideline, 44% of the herbal formulas were the same. This suggests considerable continuity in the clinical application of these herbs between classical and modern Chinese medicine practice. Of the 15 herbs most frequently used as ingredients of the classical formulas, all have received research attention, and all have been reported to have anti-inflammatory effects. Two of these 15 herbs have already been developed into new anti-RA therapeutics—sinomenine from Sinomenium acutum (Thunb.) Rehd. & Wils and total glucosides of peony from Paeonia lactiflora Pall. Nevertheless, there remains considerable scope for further research. This text-mining approach was effective in identifying multiple natural product candidates for future research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of studies of integrative treatment for colorectal cancer (CRC) have been published in Chinese journals. These studies indicate potential benefits, but concerns have been raised over the quality of trials published in Chinese journals. The CONSORT statement provides a guide for study reporting that has been endorsed by more than 400 international journals. Previous studies have used the CONSORT checklist to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Objectives: This study focused on RCTs of integrative and traditional medicine for CRC published in Chinese journals and assessed: (1) the overall quality of reporting with a focus on methodological aspects; (2) change over time; and (3) the influence of study funding, level of institution conducting the trial, rank of the journal, and the length of the article. Design: Searches of seven databases identified RCTs. Quality was assessed using CONSORT 2010 with adaptations to facilitate scoring. Additional codes were added for publication year, hospital rank, report length, and status of the journal. Scores of each checklist item, total scores, and scores for eight items associated with RCT methodology were calculated. Results: Eighty-one studies were included in the main analyses. The RCT methodology subgroup scores were significantly higher in studies: with public funding, conducted by authors from university hospitals, published in higher ranked journals, and in longer articles. Conclusions: Few Chinese journals mention CONSORT in their author guidelines. In these RCTs on CRC better reporting of RCT methodology was associated with ranking of the journal as 'core,' public funding of the RCT, and first or correspondent author from a university hospital but the quality of reporting had not significantly improved in 15 years. As the volume of scientific information produced in China grows, it is imperative that there is growth in the quality of this information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Atopic eczema or atopic dermatitis is a chronic inflammatory skin disease. Current conventional medical treatment for moderate and severe atopic eczema is not satisfactory. There is promising evidence derived from randomised clinical trials to support the clinical use of Chinese herbal medicine in the management of atopic eczema. However, the available evidence is compromised by the high risk of bias associated with most of the included trials. Therefore, well-designed and adequately powered randomised clinical trials are needed. The primary aim of this trial is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral ingestion of an oral Chinese herbal formula (Pei Tu Qing Xin granules; PTQX) in children aged between 6 and 16 years with moderate to severe atopic eczema. Methods/Design: We have designed a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-arm, parallel clinical trial with 12 weeks of treatment and a 4-week follow-up period. A pilot study with 30 participants will be conducted at the RMIT University in Australia to determine the feasibility of the full-scale randomised clinical trial (N = 124). Eczema Area and Severity Index score will be the primary outcome. Secondary outcome measures include change in symptoms using the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index and the use of concomitant medicines. Safety parameters include report of adverse events and pathology tests during the trial period. Discussion: Key elements for conducting a high-quality randomised clinical trial have been addressed in this protocol. Findings from the proposed trial will provide critical evidence regarding Chinese herbal medicine treatment for atopic eczema. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review aims to assess the effects and safety of Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) in the management of rhinosinusitis (RS); inform clinicians of the current state of the evidence; identify the best available evidence; and suggest further directions for research. Five English and four Chinese language databases, and four clinical trial registries were searched. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Participants were diagnosed with RS based on established criteria. Test interventions were CHMs administered orally and/or nasally, excluding injections and displacement techniques. Control interventions included placebos, no additional treatment, and conventional non-invasive treatments including pharmacotherapies and/or nasal irrigation, and/or inhalations. Polyposis and post-surgical recovery were excluded. Outcomes were Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT), visual analogue scales (VAS), Lund-Mackay computed tomography score (LM), Lund-Kennedy Endoscopic score (LK), Mucociliary transport time (MTT), Mucociliary transport rate (MTR), quality of life and adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias used the Cochrane tool. Meta-analysis in Review Manager 5.4.1 used random effects for mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals. Heterogeneity was assessed as I2. Thirty-four RCTs were included, 30 of chronic RS (CRS) and four of acute RS (ARS). These enrolled 3,752 participants. Five RCTs blinded participants. For CRS, comparisons with placebo showed greater improvements in the CHM groups for SNOT-20 and VAS-TNS (total nasal symptoms). Blinded comparisons with pharmacotherapies showed no differences between groups in the degree of improvement for SNOT-20, VAS-TNS, and LM, suggesting these CHMs had similar effects, at least in the short term. In ARS, pooled results found improved scores on VAS-TNS and LK suggesting a benefit for combining these CHMs with pharmacotherapies. Limitations included inadequacies in study design and methodological reporting, and insufficient reporting of AEs. Heterogeneity in some pooled results precluded strong conclusions. Further well-designed studies are needed to test whether the results are replicable. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42019119586)., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2022 Cui et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Panax ginseng (ginseng) is a therapeutic herb which might be beneficial in COPD. The study investigated if ginseng, compared with placebo, is effective and safe for people with moderate COPD., Methods: This multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial compared 24 weeks of ginseng capsules (100 mg twice daily) with placebo. Participants were followed up for a further 24 weeks. Participants were aged 40 years and over and had airflow limitation in the moderate (Global Initiative for Chronic Obstructive Lung Disease 2) COPD range. The coprimary endpoints were the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire, the COPD Assessment Test and the Short Form Health Survey. Secondary outcomes included lung function, exacerbation rate and use of relief medication., Findings: 168 participants were randomised 1:1 from five centres in Australia and China. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. There were no significant differences between ginseng and placebo, with overall results improving in both groups. Ginseng seemed safe for, and well tolerated by, people with COPD., Interpretation: There was no significant difference in improvement in health-related quality of life (primary outcome) between the ginseng and placebo groups., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12610000768099., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)