| Literature DB >> 33062025 |
Min Zhou1, Chao Ye2, Qijun Liang2, Qiulan Pei2, Fan Xu1, Hang Wen3.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a common respiratory disease that can lead to respiratory failure in severe condition. Despite notable advances in its treatment, some patients show poor effect when treated with conventional western medicine (CWM). Traditional Chinese medicine with the Yiqi Yangyin Huoxue method (YQYYHXM) has been reported to be positive for IPF. In order to explore the effectiveness and safety of YQYYHXM in the treatment of IPF, we performed this meta-analysis.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 33062025 PMCID: PMC7548958 DOI: 10.1155/2020/8391854
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram of the study.
Characteristics of included studies.
| Studies (first author, year) | Location | Sample size (male/female) | Age (mean years) | Interventions | Duration (weeks) | Outcomes | Classification of disease (light/middle/severe) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al. [ | Beijing, China | E:40/21 | E:61.9 ± 11.2 | E: Feiwei Chongji | 8 | (1)(2)(3)(9) | NM |
| Luo [ | Beijing, China | E:13/8 | E:60.98 ± 9.22 | E: Feixiantongfang | 12 | (1)(2)(3)(5)(6)(9) | E:5/23/2 |
| Li et al. [ | Beijing, China | E:18/16 | E:58.23 ± 8.35 | E: Yangyin Tongluo pill | 12 | (5)(9) | NM |
| Mi [ | Beijing, China | E:13/7 | E:65 ± 9.453 | E: Feixiantongfang | 12 | (4)(5)(9) | NM |
| Li et al. [ | Beijing, China | E:14/9 | E:59.97 ± 9.77 | E: Feibitongfang | 12 | (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) | E:0/18/3 |
| Hu [ | Beijing, China | E:10/5 | E:63.9 ± 9.4 | E: Baofeitang and Dahuangzhechong pill | 12 | (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) | E:3/12/0 |
| Liu [ | Henan, China | E:29/11 | E:66. 49 ± 1. 11 | E: Shenmai injection + Shenxiong injection + C | 2 | (1)(3)(9) | NM |
| Lin [ | Beijing, China | E:15/10 | E:61.12 ± 9.22 | E: Feixiantongfang | 12 | (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) | E:3/18/4 |
(1), change of cough; (2), changes of chest pain; (3), changes in shortness of breath; (4), lung function vital capacity (FVC); (5), total lung capacity (TLC); (6), partial pressure of oxygen in blood (PaO2); (7), adverse events; (8), SGRQ score; (9), 6-minute walk test distance (6MWT); NM: not mentioned; E: experimental group; C: control group.
Description of the prescriptions.
| First author | Formula | Ingredient (Latin name) | Chinese name | Dosage (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al. [ | Feiwei | (1) | (1) Xiyangshen | 15 |
|
| ||||
| Luo [ | Feixiantong | (1) | (1) Shenghuangqi | 30 |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. [ | Yangyin Yife | (1) | (1) Huangqi | 6 g per pill |
|
| ||||
| Mi [ | Feixiantong | (1) | (1) Shenghuangqi | 30 |
|
| ||||
| Liu et al. [ | Feibitongfang | (1) Clematis du sis Osbeck | (1) Weilingxian | 15 |
|
| ||||
| Hu [ | Baofeitang and Dahuangzhec hong pill | (1) | (1) Dangshen | NM |
|
| ||||
| Li [ | SFJ and SXJ | (1) | (1) Renshen | NM |
|
| ||||
| Lin [ | Feixiantong | (1) | (1) Shenghuangqi | NM |
SFJ: Renshen Fuzhi injection; SXJ: Danshen Chuanxiong injection; NM: not mentioned.
Frequency statistics of herbs that appeared in eight trials.
| Scientific name | Chinese name | Frequency | Rate (%) | TCM diagnosis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Huangqi | 5 | 63 | Qi deficiency |
| Clematis du sis Osbeck | Weilingxian | 4 | 50 | Blood stasis |
|
| Maidong | 3 | 38 | Yin deficiency |
|
| Danshen | 3 | 38 | Blood stasis |
|
| Sanleng | 3 | 38 | Blood stasis |
|
| Ezhu | 3 | 38 | Blood stasis |
Figure 2Risk of bias graph.
Figure 3Risk of bias summary.
Figure 4Meta-analysis for the change of cough of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 5Meta-analysis for the change of chest pain of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 6Meta-analysis for the changes in shortness of breath of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 7Meta-analysis for FVC of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 8Meta-analysis for TLC of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 9Meta-analysis for PaO2 of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 10Meta-analysis for 6MWD of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 11Meta-analysis for SGRQ score of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Statement of facts for all outcomes.
| YQYYHXM plus CWM vs. CWM | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient or population: patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis; setting: all eligible patients with intervention therapy | |||||
| Intervention: (YQYYHXM, CWM) | |||||
|
| |||||
| Outcome | No. of participants (RCTs) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) | Quality of the evidence | |
| CWM | CWM + YQYYHXM | (GRADE) | |||
|
| |||||
| Change of cough | 363 | The mean of change of cough was 1.08 to 3.73 | MD 0.71 lower (1.21 to 0.21 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕Ο moderateab | |
|
| |||||
| Changes of chest pain | 286 | The mean of chest pain was 1.63 to 2.93 | MD 0.46 lower (0.7 to 0.21 lower) | ⊕⊕ΟΟ low | |
|
| |||||
| Changes in shortness of breath | 363 | The mean of shortness of breath was 0.79 to 7.95 | MD 0.38 lower (0.62 to 0.14 lower) | ⊕⊕⊕Ο moderatea | |
|
| |||||
| FVC | 176 | The mean of FVC was 62.92 to 72.25 | MD 1.52 higher (2.72 lower to 5.76 higher) | ⊕⊕ΟΟ lowa | |
|
| |||||
| TLC | 270 | The mean of TLC was 47.84 to 62.57 | MD 2.22 lower (4.2 to 0.24 lower) | ⊕⊕ΟΟ lowac | |
|
| |||||
| PO2 | 166 | The mean of PO2 was 77.46 to 77.67 | MD 2.01 higher (0.2 lower to 4.23 higher) | ⊕⊕⊕Ο moderatea | |
|
| |||||
| 6MWD | 343 | The mean of 6MWD was 331 to 350.5 | MD 87.96 higher (86.71 to 89.21 higher) | ⊕⊕⊕Ο moderateac | |
|
| |||||
| SGRQ | 206 | OR 3.6 (1.52 to 8.51) | The mean of SGRQ 114 per 1000 (50 to 144) | 151 per 1000 (65 to 192) | ⊕ΟΟΟ very lowa |
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence. High quality: we are extremely confident for that the effect estimation lies close to true effect. Moderate quality: we have enough confidence for that effect estimation is likely to be close to the true effect. Low quality: we maintain partial confidence for that effect estimation may be obviously different from true effect. Very low quality: we have little confidence for that effect estimation is likely to be obviously different from true effect. Explanations. aNo blinding. bHigh heterogeneity. cP < 0.05 in Egger's test.
Figure 12Meta-analysis for adverse events of YQYYHXM group versus CWM group.
Figure 13The sensitivity analysis of 6MWD.