Search

Objective: This study constitutes a pioneering systematic review and meta analysis delving into the clinical efficacy and safety of the combined therapy involving Wuhu Decoction and azithromycin for treating Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in pediatric patients.Methods: This study conducted a comprehensive computerized search, covering 6 Chinese databases and 6 English databases, to collect randomized controlled trials related to the combined use of Wuhu Decoction and azithromycin for treating Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in pediatric patients. The search was extended until August 2023. Two independent researchers were involved in literature screening, data extraction, and bias risk assessment. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata 14.0 and RevMan 5.4 software. Additionally, meta-regression analysis and subgroup analysis were carried out on primary outcomes to identify potential sources of heterogeneity and confounding factors.Results: A total of 22 randomized controlled trials involving 2,026 patients were included in this study. The combined therapy of Wuhu Decoction and azithromycin demonstrated superior efficacy compared to azithromycin alone (RR = 1.17, 95% CI [1.13, 1.21], p < 0.00001; low certainty of evidence). Additionally, patients receiving the combination therapy experienced significantly reduced the disappearance time of fever (MD = −1.42, 95% CI [−1.84, −1.00], p < 0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), disappearance time of cough (MD = −2.08, 95% CI [−2.44, −1.71], p < 0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), disappearance of pulmonary rales (MD = −1.97, 95% CI [−2.31, −1.63], p < 0.00001; very low certainty of evidence), and disappearance time of wheezing (MD = −1.47, 95% CI [−1.72, −1.22], p < 0.00001; very low certainty of evidence). Meta-regression analysis suggested that course of disease, sample size, and age might be sources of heterogeneity. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses reaffirmed the stability of these results. Furthermore, analyses of secondary outcomes such as T lymphocytes, serum inflammatory factors, and the incidence rate of adverse reactions consistently favored the combination therapy of WHD and azithromycin over azithromycin alone, with statistically significant differences.Conclusion: Based on our meta-analysis findings, the combined therapy of Wuhu Decoction and azithromycin for treating pediatric Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia exhibited superior overall efficacy in comparison to azithromycin monotherapy. However, in the included 22 studies, the majority of evaluated factors showed unclear bias risks, and a persistent bias risk was consistently present within one category. Moreover, due to the low quality of evidence, interpreting these results should be approached with caution. Hence, we emphasize the necessity for future high-quality, multicenter, and large-sample clinical randomized controlled trials. These trials are essential to provide more robust data for evidence-based research and to establish higher-quality evidence support.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42023465606

Objective: Evaluate the impact of adjusting the overall dose, Gypsum Fibrosum [Mineral; Gypsum] (ShiGao, SG) dose, and Prunus armeniaca L. [Rosaceae; Semen Armeniacae Amarum] (KuXingRen, KXR) dose on the efficacy of MaXingShiGan Decoction (MXSG) in treating children with bronchial pneumonia (Wind-heat Blocking the Lung), in order to provide strategy supported by high-quality evidence for the selection of rational clinical doses of MXSG.Methods: Based on the basic dose of MXSG, we conducted three randomized, double-blind, dose parallel controlled, multicenter clinical trials, involving adjustments to the overall dose, SG dose, and KXR dose, and included 120 children with bronchial pneumonia (Wind-heat Blocking the Lung) respectively. And the patients were divided into low, medium, and high dose groups in a 1:1:1 ratio, with 40 cases in each group. The intervention period lasted for 10 days. The primary outcome was the clinical cured rate, while the secondary outcomes included the effectiveness in alleviating major symptoms of bronchial pneumonia (including fever, cough, dyspnea, and phlegm congestion). And the occurrence of adverse events was recorded.Results: We first recorded and analyzed the baseline characteristics of the three studies, including age, gender, height, and so on. The results indicated that there were no significant differences among the dose groups within each study. For the study adjusting the overall dose of MXSG, the results showed that both the medium-dose group and high-dose group had significantly higher clinical cured rates compared to the low-dose group (Chi-square value 9.01, p = 0.0111). However, there was no significant benefit between the high-dose group and the medium-dose group (81.58% vs. 81.08%). Regarding phlegm congestion, excluding fever, cough, and dyspnea, both the medium-dose group and high-dose group had significantly higher clinical cured rates than the low-dose group (Chi-square value 6.31, p = 0.0426), and there was no significant benefit between the high-dose group and the medium-dose group (69.23% vs. 75.00%). A total of 5 adverse events were observed, of which only 1 case in the medium-dose group was possibly related to the experimental medication. For the study adjusted the SG dose in MXSG, the results showed that the high-dose group had the highest clinical cured rate, but the inter-group difference was not statistically significant (Chi-square value 3.36, p = 0.1864). The area under the curve (AUC) for cough in the medium-dose group was significantly lower than in the low-dose group and high-dose group (F-test value 3.14, p = 0.0471). Although no significant differences were observed in fever and dyspnea among the groups, the AUC in the high-dose group was lower than in the medium-dose and low-dose groups. In comparing the complete defervescence time, both the high-dose group (p < 0.0001) and the medium-dose group (p = 0.0015) achieved faster than the low-dose group. The high-dose group slightly outperformed the medium-dose group (0.50 (0.50, 0.80) vs. 0.80 (0.40, 1.40)), although the difference was not significant. In the medium-dose group, 1 adverse event was observed, but it was not related to the experimental medication. For the study adjusted the KXR dose in MXSG, the results showed that both the medium-dose group and high-dose group had significantly higher cured rates compared to the low-dose group (Chi-square value 47.05, p < 0.0001). However, there was no significant benefit comparing the high-dose group to the medium-dose group (90.00% vs. 92.50%). Regarding clinical symptoms, the results indicated that for cough (F-test value 3.16, p = 0.0460) and phlegm congestion (F-test value 3.84, p = 0.0243), the AUC for both the medium-dose group and high-dose group were significantly lower than in the low-dose group. Although there was benefit in the high-dose group compared to the medium-dose group, it was not statistically significant. No adverse events were observed during the study period.Conclusion: The synthesis of the three conducted clinical studies collectively indicates that for children with bronchial pneumonia (Wind-heat Blocking the Lung), the basic clinical dose of MXSG may represents an optimal intervention dose based on the accumulated clinical experience of doctors. If the dose is insufficient, the clinical effects might be compromised, but using a higher dose does not significantly enhance benefits. Concerning different symptoms, increasing the overall formula’s dose has a favorable impact on improving phlegm congestion, increasing the SG is effective in improving symptoms such as fever, cough, and dyspnea, while higher dose of KXR is effective in alleviating cough and phlegm congestion. These findings suggest that for MXSG, achieving the optimal intervention dose is crucial to achieve better clinical efficacy. For the SG and KXR, if certain symptoms are more severe, increasing the dose can be considered within safe limits, can lead to significant clinical benefits in symptom improvement. This also explains why the dose of MXSG might vary among clinical doctors, while maintaining a balance between safety and effectiveness. Of course, our study is still exploratory clinical trials, and further studies are needed to confirm our findings.Clinical Trial Registration:https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.html; Identifier: ChiCTR-TRC-13003093, ChiCTR-TRC-13003099.

Background: As one of the most commonly used Chinese medicine formula in the manage of respiratory diseases, Maxing Ganshi Decoction (MGD) has been demonstrated to improve the clinical symptoms of pneumonia. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of MGD in treating children with community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), we conducted the clinical trial.Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial was conducted in 3 study sites in Tianjin, China. MDG or placebo were randomly given to patients aged 3–6 years with onset of CAP within 48 h. Changes in disease efficacy during the study period (which was measured as recovery, significant effect, improvement and no effect) was evaluated as the primary outcome. Time from enrollment to fever resolution was assessed as the secondary outcome. The adverse event was analyzed as safety evaluation.Results: A total of 71 patients (36 in MGD and 35 in placebo) were randomized and completed the whole study. The patient demographics and other characteristics at baseline were similar between the 2 groups (p > 0.05). After 10 days of intervention, the proportion of recovered and significant effective patients was increased significantly in the MGD group (34.85% [95% CI, 12.44%–57.26%]; p < 0.05) compared with the control group. Besides, the symptom score of the MGD group was lowered significantly (p < 0.001). The estimated time to fever resolution in the MGD group was also reduced compared with the control group (p < 0.05). During the whole study, no side effects were observed in both MGD and control groups.Conclusion: MGD was effective in improving disease efficacy, clinical symptoms and reducing time to fever resolution in patients with childhood CAP, which suggested that MGD may be used as an alternative therapy in the treatment of childhood CAP.Clinical Trial Registration: http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=5612, identifier 13003955.

Background: As a cause of respiratory tract infections in humans, influenza remains with high morbidity and mortality, with associated significant healthcare burden and increased financial burden. Traditional Chinese medicine injections (TCMIs) combined with oseltamivir (TCMIs + oseltamivir) are the representative therapeutic strategies for influenza, which is a compliant with clinical applications in China. The aim of this study was to describe the comparative efficacy and safety of TCMIs + oseltamivir in patients with influenza, based on the current evidence.Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, VIP information resource integration service platform databases, and the Chinese biomedical literature service system were searched to find randomized controlled trials where TCMIs + oseltamivir are the representative therapeutic strategies for influenza, from inception until October 2021, without language restriction. Two investigators independently screened eligibility criteria, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias with the same criteria. We conducted a network meta-analysis using the Bayesian random method for each outcome and performed the sensitivity analysis, meta-regression, and Egger’s and Begg’s tests for the reliability and robustness of our results.Results: Thirty-one trials including 2,893 participants proved eligible and reported on four TCMIs + oseltamivir versus oseltamivir. Network meta-analysis showed Yanhuning (YHN) +oseltamivir (MD = −1.7, 95% CrI: −2.5 to −0.88; SUCRA = 0.89; low certainty of evidence) in fever disappearance time, Tanreqing (TRQ) +oseltamivir (MD = −1.9, 95% CrI: −2.8 to −1; SUCRA = 0.97; low certainty of evidence) in cough disappearance time, and Xiyanping (XYP) +oseltamivir (OR = 5.9, 95% CrI: 3.1 to 11; SUCRA = 0.82; very low certainty of evidence) in the response rate to be more efficacious than oseltamivir alone with the best SUCRA. Based on the combined SUCRA value for primary outcomes, TRQ + oseltamivir is probably better in cough disappearance time, and XYP + oseltamivir and YHN + oseltamivir may be better in fever disappearance time than others. No significant difference in safety between the treatments.Conclusion: In patients with influenza, TCMIs + oseltamivir only partially improve flu symptoms. Overall therapeutic efficacy and safety are inconclusive, based on low to very low certainty of evidence. However, the safety remains uncertain, and TCMI treatments for influenza should be considered with caution. More high-quality studies examining the efficacy and safety of TCMIs are needed.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, identifier CRD42021286994

BackgroundMycoplasma pneumoniae is one of the main causes of community-acquired pneumonia. Due to the imperfect immune system of children, this also causes Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) to be more common in children. Globally, the incidence of MPP in children is gradually increasing. This study was the first to systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of Shuanghuanglian (SHL) oral preparations combined with azithromycin in the treatment of MPP in children.MethodsThis study fully retrieved 3 Chinese databases and 5 English databases to search the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin in the treatment of children with MPP. The search time is from the inception to September 2020. Data extraction and risk bias evaluation were performed independently by two researchers. We conducted a Meta-analysis of all the outcome indicators. Besides, Meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and heterogeneity analysis were used for the primary outcomes to find the possible potential confounding factors.ResultsFinally, we included 27 RCTs involving 2884 patients. SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin were better than azithromycin alone in response rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI[1.11, 1.18]; low certainty evidence), disappearance time of fever(MD = -1.72, 95% CI[-2.47, -0.97]; low certainty evidence), disappearance time of cough (MD = -2.95, 95% CI[-3.55, -2.34]; low certainty evidence), and disappearance time of pulmonary rales (MD = -2.13, 95% CI[-2.88, -1.38]; low certainty evidence). The Meta-regression results showed that the course of disease, age, and method of administration may be the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis have found that the results were stable. For other related clinical symptoms, T lymphocytes, and Serum inflammatory factors, SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin was better than azithromycin alone, and the difference was statistically significant. For adverse events with low certainty evidence, safety needs further verification.ConclusionBased on the results of meta-analysis with low certainty evidence, we believed that SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin likely be effectively improved clinical symptoms compared with azithromycin alone. Low certainty evidence showed that SHL may safety with no serious adverse events. Due to these limitations, the safety needs further verification. More high-quality, multicenter, and large-sample RCTs should be tested and verified in the future.