Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Long COVID: Scoping Review and Bibliometric Analysis.

Prolonged symptoms after the clearance of acute coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection, termed long COVID, are an emerging threat to the post-COVID-19 era. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions may play a significant role in the management of long COVID. The present study aimed to identify published studies on the use of CAM interventions for long COVID and provide an overview of the research status using bibliometric analysis. The present scoping review searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from inception until November 2021 and identified published studies on CAM interventions for long COVID. A narrative analysis of the study types and effectiveness and safety of the CAM interventions are presented and a bibliometric analysis of citation information and references of the included publications were analyzed using the Bibliometrix package for R. An electronic database search identified 16 publications (2 clinical studies and 14 study protocols of systematic reviews or clinical studies) that were included in the present study. Dyspnea or pulmonary dysfunction, quality of life, olfactory dysfunction, and psychological symptoms after COVID-19 infection were assessed in the included publications. The two clinical studies suggested that Chinese herbal medications were effective in relieving symptoms of pulmonary dysfunction. Bibliometric analysis revealed the current trend of research publication in this area was driven by study protocols written by Chinese, Korean, and Indian authors. Thus, the present scoping review and bibliometric analysis revealed that there are few studies published about the use of CAM for long COVID and long-term management for COVID-19 survivors. Original studies on CAM interventions, including randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews, are required to actively support evidence for their use in the management of long COVID. PROSPERO registration: this trial is registered with CRD42021281526.

Use of Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) has been reported to use for symptom management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this review was to identify the overall usage prevalence of TCIM interventions for COVID-19. Methods: Surveys on the general population and observational studies on the COVID-19 patient chart review were located in the search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in September 2021. Observational studies, such as cross-sectional studies, surveys, cohort studies and hospital-based patient case reviews, published in any language, reporting the usage of TCIM in the patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in this review. Data screening and extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. To conduct a meta-analysis of the usage prevalence of various TCIM interventions, the effect size of the proportion for each intervention was calculated with the inverse variance method. The main outcome was usage prevalence of TCIM interventions among patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 62 studies were included in this review. The overall TCIM usage prevalence was estimated to be 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.73). The overall prevalence did not differ between the population-based survey (0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.81) and the hospital-based patient case review (0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.73). Statistical heterogeneity and comparatively low quality in reporting were observed, which should be cautiously considered when interpreting the results. Conclusion: Various TCIM interventions were reported to be used with comparatively high frequency. Future international collaborative research might overcome the main limitation of this study, i.e., the heterogeneity of the included data. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278452, identifier: CRD42021278452.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions for COVID-19: An overview of systematic reviews.

Background: Since the beginning of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, various complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) have been used in clinical practice. In this overview, we summarized the evidence for CAM interventions in the treatment of COVID-19 patients. Methods: For this overview, PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to October 2021. Systematic reviews (SRs) on the effectiveness and safety of CAM interventions for COVID-19 patients were located, and the MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the reporting quality of the included SRs. Keywords including COVID-19 and CAM interventions were used for locating SRs. For evidence mapping, we created a two-dimensional bubble plot that included the width and strength of the evidence for each CAM intervention and specific outcome. Results: In this overview, we identified 24 SRs (21 for Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) medications, two for vitamin D and one for home-based activity). From the included SRs, TCM herbal medications were reported to show good results in decreasing the rate of disease progression (relative risk (RR) 0.30, 95% confidence intervals (CI) [0.20, 0.44]), time to the resolution of fever (standard mean difference (SMD) -0.98, 95% CI [-1.78, -0.17]) and rate of progression to severe COVID-19 cases (RR 0.34, 95% CI [0.18, 0.65]), but the evidence for other interventions did not show effectiveness with certainty. Gastric disturbance was a major adverse event of TCM medications. Conclusion: There is evidence that TCM medications are effective in the symptom management of COVID-19 patients. However, evidence for the effectiveness of most CAM interventions still needs evaluation.

Dropouts in randomized clinical trials of Korean medicine interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The dropout rate is an important determinant of outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and should be carefully controlled. This study explored the current dropout rate in studies of Korean medicine (KM) interventions by systematic evaluation of RCTs conducted in the past 10 years. METHODS: Three clinical trial registries (Clinical Research Information Service, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) were searched to identify RCT protocols for KM interventions, such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, moxibustion, or cupping, and studies of mixed interventions, registered in Korea from 2009 to 2019. The PubMed, Embase, and OASIS databases were searched for the full reports of these RCTs, including published journal articles and theses. Dropout rates and the reasons for dropping out were analyzed in each report. The risk of bias in each of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The risk difference for dropping out between the treatment and control groups was calculated with the 95% confidence interval in a random effects model. RESULTS: Forty-nine published studies were included in the review. The median dropout rate was 10% in the treatment group (interquartile range 6.7%, 17.0%) and 14% in the control group (interquartile range 5.4%, 16.3%) and was highest in acupuncture studies (12%), followed by herbal medicine (10%), moxibustion (8%), and cupping (7%). Loss to follow-up was the most common reason for dropping out. The risk difference for dropping out between the intervention and control groups was estimated to be 0.01 (95% confidence interval - 0.02, 0.03) in KM intervention studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review found no significant difference in the dropout rate between studies according to the type of KM intervention. We recommend allowance for a minimum dropout rate of 15% in future RCTs of KM interventions. REVIEW PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020141011.

Efficacy and safety of thread embedding acupuncture combined with acupuncture for chronic low back pain: A randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a very common disease. Many patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP) have been treated by complementary and alternative medicine such as acupuncture (AT) treatment. A type of AT, thread embedding acupuncture (TEA), consists of a thread that can continually stimulate at the AT points and has mechanical and chemical effects. Although TEA was widely used in clinical practice, there was little evidence of its efficacy and safety for CLBP. METHODS: This clinical trial was randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, two-armed, parallel, and conducted in multiple centers. Four Korean medical institutions recruited 38 outpatients with CLBP. The participants were randomly allocated to a treatment group (TEA combined with AT) or a control group (only AT) in a 1:1 ratio. All participants received conventional AT twice a week for 8 weeks (16 sessions) at 15 AT points (GV3 and bilateral BL23, BL24, BL25, BL26, BL40, BL60, and EX-B5) and the treatment group participants additionally received TEA once a week for 8 weeks (8 sessions) on 10 AT points in the multifidus, spinal erector, and lumbar quadrate muscles. The primary outcome measure of this study was the change of visual analog scale (VAS) from baseline (0 week) to the end of intervention (8 weeks). Secondary outcome measures included clinically relevant improvement (minimal clinically important difference) and 3% to 50% decrease on VAS, disability level (Korean version of Roland and Morris disability questionnaire), quality of life (Korean version of European quality of life 5dimension), global assessment (patient global impression of change), economic analysis, credibility test, and safety assessment. RESULTS: The treatment group showed a significant reduction in VAS scores when compared with the control group (-33.7 ±â€Š25.1 vs -15.6 ±â€Š17.0, P = .013). As for the secondary outcome measures, the treatment group showed significant difference in 50% decrease on VAS and patient global impression of change. There was no serious adverse event associated with TEA and AT. CONCLUSION: This clinical trial documents the efficacy and safety of TEA combined with AT for the management of CLBP.

Efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness analysis of adjuvant herbal medicine treatment, Palmijihwang-hwan, for chronic low back pain: a study protocol for randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Low back pain is a common symptom and continuous or recurrent pain results in chronic low back pain (CLBP). While many patients with CLBP have tried various treatments, complementary and alternative medicine including acupuncture and herbal medicine is one of the commonly used treatments. Palmijihwang-hwan is a herbal medicine used frequently in clinical practice but there has been no report of the efficacy, safety, or cost-effectiveness analysis of Palmijihwang-hwan for CLBP. METHODS: This study is a randomized, assessor-blinded, multicenter, clinical trial with two parallel groups. Four Korean medicine hospitals will recruit 84 participants and randomly allocate them into the control or treatment group in a 1:1 ratio. The control group will receive acupuncture treatment at 11 local and 4 distal acupuncture points for 20 min twice a week for 6 weeks. The treatment group will receive the same acupuncture treatment as the control group and also take Palmijihwang-hwan for 6 weeks. The primary outcome will be the change in visual analog scale (VAS) score between baseline (visit 1) and completion of the intervention (visit 12), and secondary outcomes will be pain-related clinical relevance (minimal clinical important difference or the proportion of the participants who decrease more than 30, or 50% on VAS), disability (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), quality of life (EuroQol-5D), global assessment (Patient Global Impression of Change), and economic analysis (cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analysis). Additionally, safety will be assessed. DISCUSSION: The results of our study will provide the clinical evidence about the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness analysis of Palmijihwang-hwan for CLBP. There will be a chance to provide multiple subdivided influence of this treatment with various outcome measures, but lack of placebo is our limitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service, KCT0002998. Registered on 12 July 2018.

Efficacy and safety of thread embedding acupuncture combined with conventional acupuncture for chronic low back pain: A study protocol for a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, multicenter clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Back pain is one of the most common diseases, and many patients with recurrent pain seek alternative treatment strategies. Thread embedding acupuncture involves thread insertion at the acupuncture point for continuous physical and chemical stimulation. Although thread embedding is widely used in clinical practice, there is no sound evidence of its efficacy for chronic back pain. We describe the protocol for a randomized controlled trial for investigation of the efficacy and safety of thread embedding acupuncture combined with conventional acupuncture for chronic low back pain. METHODS: This randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, 2-armed, parallel, multicenter clinical trial will include 38 outpatients with chronic low back pain recruited from 4 traditional Korean Medicine hospitals. The patients will be randomly allocated to a treatment group (conventional acupuncture + thread embedding acupuncture) and a control group (only conventional acupuncture) in a 1:1 ratio. The treatment group patients will receive thread embedding acupuncture treatment at 10 acupuncture points (multifidus muscle, 4 points; spinal erector muscles, four points; lumbar quadrate muscle, 2 points) once a week for 8 weeks (8 sessions). In addition, all patients will receive conventional acupuncture treatment at 14 acupuncture points (GV3, EX-B5, and bilateral BL23, BL24, BL25, BL26, BL40, and BL60) twice a week for 8 weeks (16 sessions). The primary outcome will be the change in the visual analog scale score from visit 1 to visit 16, analyzed by independent t tests, in both groups. The groups will also be compared with regard to the clinical relevance (minimal clinically important difference), quality of life (3-level version of Euroqol-5D), disability level (Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire), global assessment (patient global impression of change), and safety. Cost data for cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses will be collected. DISCUSSION: Our study results will provide evidence of the efficacy and safety of thread embedding acupuncture combined with conventional acupuncture for the management of chronic low back pain. Even though the assessors will be blinded, the patients will not be blinded to treatment because of the lack of a sham embedding acupuncture group; this is a limitation of our study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Research Information Service: KCT0002666.