Xiaoketongbi Formula vs pregabalin for painful diabetic neuropathy: A single-center, randomized, single-blind, double-dummy, and parallel controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: We assessed the efficacy and safety of the Xiaoketongbi Formula (XF) vs. pregabalin in patients with painful diabetic neuropathy (PDN). METHODS: Patients with PDN (n = 68) were included in a single-center, randomized, single-blind, double-dummy, parallel controlled clinical trial. The primary outcome was the change in the Brief Pain Inventory for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy (BPI-DPN). Secondary outcomes evaluated included the reduction of BPI-DPN >50%, changes in the numeric rating scale-11 (NRS-11) score for pain, Daily Sleep Interference Diary (DSID), Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC), nerve conduction velocity (NCV), and adverse events. RESULTS: After 10 weeks of treatment, the BPI-DPN score reduced from 42.44 ± 17.56 to 26.47 ± 22.22 and from 52.03 ± 14.30 to 37.85 ± 17.23 in the XF and pregabalin group (Ps < 0.001), respectively. The difference in the absolute change in BPI-DPN score between both groups was -1.79 (95% CI: -9.09, 5.50; p = 0.625). In the XF and pregabalin groups, 44.1% (15/34) and 20.6% (7/34) of patients reported a BPI-DPN reduction >50% (p = 0.038), respectively. There were no significant differences between groups in NRS-11 and DSID (Ps > 0.05). A significantly greater number of patients in the XF group felt "significantly improved" or "improved" than in the pregabalin group (35.3% (12/34) vs. 11.8% (4/34), p = 0.045). The absolute change in motor nerve conduction velocity of the right median nerve was significantly different between both groups (XF group 0.7 ± 2.3 vs. pregabalin group -2.2 ± 4.1, p = 0.004). No serious adverse events were reported in either group. CONCLUSIONS: XF is equivalent to pregabalin in reducing pain symptoms and improves the quality of life in patients with PDN. In addition, XF has the potential to improve nerve function by increasing NCV.

Clinical Evidence on the Use of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Acute Infectious Diseases: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Background: Acute infectious diseases constitute the most prevalent public health emergency (PHE) in China. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) has long been used in the treatment of acute infections, but the overall evidence of its benefit and harm has not been comprehensively and systematically evaluated. Methods: We searched CBM, CNKI, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library, embase and preprint platforms to retrieve systematic reviews (SRs) on CHM for acute infectious. Participants with COVID-19, SARS, H1N1, tuberculosis, bacillary dysentery, mumps, herpangina, hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD), and other acute infectious diseases were included. Interventional group consisting of patients treated with CHM combined with Western medicine or CHM alone. The AMSTAR 2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the retrieved studies. Information on interventions, control measures and outcomes of the included studies was extracted, and meta-analyses were qualitatively synthesized. Results: A total of 51 SRs and meta-analyses were eligible for this overview, including 19 for COVID-19, 11 for hand-foot-and-mouth disease, 8 for severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), 4 for tuberculosis, 3 for mumps, 2 for bacillary dysentery, 2 for H1N1 influenza and 2 for herpangina. Six systematic reviews were of high quality, all of which were on the use of CHM for COVID-19; 24 were of moderate quality; 10 were of low quality; and 11 were of very low quality. CHM appeared to have potential benefits in improving clinical symptoms and signs for most infections with an acceptable safety profile, and the clinical evidence of the benefits of CHM for acute respiratory infections such as COVID-19, SARS and H1N1 seems more sufficient than that for other acute infections. Conclusion: Overall, CHM, both decoction and Chinese patent medicine, used alone or in combination with conventional medicine may offer potential benefits to relieving symptoms of people with acute respiratory infections. Full reporting of disease typing, staging, and severity, and intervention details is further required for a better evidence translation to the responses for PHE. Future CHM research should focus mainly on the specific aspects of respiratory infections such as its single use for mild infections, and the adjunct administration for sever infections, and individual CHM prescriptions for well-selected outcomes should be prioritized.