RESUMEN
The pathological anatomical results of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients showed that excessive inflammatory reaction in the lungs is one of the important causes for such complications as acute lung injury or acute respiratory distress syndrome. Therefore, regulation of immune response may be an effective measure for COVID-19. Alveolar macrophages have a high heterogeneity and plasticity. The dynamic changes of subsets balance and function of M1/M2 alveolar macrophages have a significant effect on pulmonary inflammatory response during the early and late stages of infection. This paper reviews the classification and function of macrophages and explores the mechanism of alveolar macrophage in the pathological process of COVID-19 at different stages and the pharmacodynamic mechanism of traditional Chinese medicine. Besides, it provides ideas for the treatment of COVID-19 with traditional Chinese medicine and other drugs' research and development based on the regulation of macrophage polarization.
RESUMEN
<p><b>OBJECTIVE</b>To observe and compare the therapeutic effects of two methods to lumbar disc herniation treated by manipulation combined with Chinese herbs and traction with Western medicine.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>A multi-center with a central district unit was used to study the patients with lumbar disc herniation from November 28th, 2008 to May 7th, 2010. All the patients were divided into treatment group and control group. The treatment group had 100 cases, including 45 males and 55 females, averaged (43.43 +/- 9.18) years. The treatment group was treated by manipulation combined with Chinese herbs; Control group had 100 cases (5 cases were fall off), including 38 males and 57 females, averaged (42.29 +/- 9.78) years. The control group was treated by traction with Western medicine. The course of treatment was 3 weeks. VAS, M-JOA, LMS (lower limb muscle strength) and classification efficacy was used to evaluate outcome and therapeutic effects before and after treatment.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>VAS and M-JOA were improved after the treatment both in treatment group and control group; there was no significant difference in LMS before and after treatment in both groups. VAS and M-JOA in treatment group was superior to those of control group after treatment. There was no significant difference in LMS. According to classification efficacy, 41 cases got excellent result, 34 good, 13 fair and 12 poor in treatment group; in control group, 35 cases obtained excellent results, 16 good, 19 fair and 25 poor. The effect of treatment group was better than that of control group.</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>Both of two methods can improve the score of VAS, M-JOA, and treatment group is better than that of control group. While for the improvement of LMS, both of two methods have no obvious effects.</p>