| Literature DB >> 35356238 |
Bofei Shu1, Hong Li1, Xu Zhou2, Zhaohui Ding3, Liling Wan3.
Abstract
Background: Re Du Ning, a traditional Chinese medicine injection, has been widely used for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, although without established systematic review evidence. This systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of Re Du Ning in the treatment of acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD).Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35356238 PMCID: PMC8959946 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7479639
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Process of literature screening.
Studies characteristics.
| Author | Sample size (EG/CG) | Mean age (EG/CG) | Experimental intervention | Cointerventions | Course of treatment (days) | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zeng et al. [ | 116/110 | — | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM; AD | 10 | C, D |
| Chen et al. [ | 77/77 | 64.7/65.8 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; AD | 7 | A, B, C, E, F, G, H, I |
| Chen et al. [ | 30/30 | — | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; AD; oxygen therapy | 10 | A |
| Dong et al. [ | 30/30 | 62.3/61.3 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM | 7 | A |
| Tian 2015 [ | 37/37 | 59.7/60.8 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; AD | 10 | A, C |
| Zhang et al. [ | 45/41 | 55/57 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; AD | 3 | A |
| Liu et al. [ | 80/80 | 68.2/66.8 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; AD | 14 | A |
| Yao [ | 50/50 | 62.1/62.4 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator PRM; AD; oxygen therapy | 7 | A |
| Weng et al. [ | 40/40 | 57/58 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator | 5 | A |
| Xu et al. [ | 15/15 | — | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM; AD; oxygen therapy | 7 | A |
| Gao et al. [ | 38/39 | 66/63 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; AD; oxygen therapy | 5 | A, H |
| Nie et al. [ | 50/50 | 72.4/70.2 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; oxygen therapy | 3 | E, F, G, H, I |
| Tang [ | 45/45 | 63/63 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; oxygen therapy | 14 | A, B, C, H, I |
| Pang et al. [ | 55/55 | 55/54 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; AD; oxygen therapy | 14 | A, D, E, F, G |
| Lu [ | 44/44 | 65.9/67.1 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM | 7 | A |
| Wan [ | 48/48 | 58.9/59.5 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM | 7 | A |
| Wei [ | 37/33 | — | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM | 10 | A, B, C |
| Zhou 2014 [ | 30/30 | 72.6/73.1 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM | 7 | A, E, F, G, H |
| Zhang [ | 45/44 | 66.2/65.7 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM; AD; oxygen therapy | 10 | A, H |
| Ye et al. [ | 40/40 | 62.8/62.4 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM | 28 | A, C |
| Yang et al. [ | 30/30 | 64.5/64.2 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; bronchodilator; PRM; AD; oxygen therapy | 10 | A, I |
| Zhang et al. [ | 45/42 | 66.2/65.7 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; AD | 10 | A, H |
| Yue [ | 33/32 | 73/70 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; AD | 14 | A, H |
| Peng et al. [ | 26/26 | 65.0/62.9 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM; AD | 10 | A |
| Tong [ | 39/39 | 64.2/63.8 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; AD | 10 | A |
| Xu et al. [ | 26/26 | 62.7/61.4 | RDN 20 ml ivgtt qd | Antibiotics; PRM | 10 | A, I |
EG: experimental group; CG: control group; PRM: phlegm resolving medicine; AD: antiasthmatic drugs; RDN: Re Du Ning injection; ivgtt: intravenous drip; qd: once a day; A: response rate; B: FEV1; C: FEV1/FVC; D: T-lymphocyte E: PH; F: PaO2; G: PaCO2; H: C-reactive protein; I: procalcitonin.
Figure 2Results of the risk of bias assessment.
Figure 3Forest plot of the meta-analysis of response to treatment.
Figure 4Forest plot of the meta-analysis of FEV1.
Figure 5Forest plot of the meta-analysis of FEV1/FVC%.
Figure 6Forest plot of meta-analysis of PH, PaO2 and PaCO2.
Figure 7Forest plot of the meta-analysis of CRP.
Figure 8Forest plot of the meta-analysis of PCT.
Figure 9Forest plot of the meta-analysis of T-lymphocyte.
Results of subgroup analysis.
| Outcome | Course of treatment (days) | No. of studies | Effects within subgroups (95% CI) | Heterogeneity within subgroups | Interaction |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Response rate | ≤7 | 9 | RR 1.15 (1.09, 1.22) |
|
|
| >7 | 14 | RR 1.14 (1.07, 1.20) |
| ||
|
| |||||
| C-reactive protein (mg/L) | ≤7 | 4 | MD −10.06 (−19.05, −1.07) |
|
|
| >7 | 4 | MD −3.48 (−5.33, −1.63) |
| ||
Figure 10Funnel plot of response rate.