| Literature DB >> 35529930 |
Jinsheng Huang1,2,3,4, Jun Kan2,3,4, Teng Fan2,3,4, Qi Quan2,3,4, Xujia Li2,3,4, Qi Jiang2,3,4, Bei Zhang2,3,4, Guifang Guo2,3,4.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nourishing Yin and clearing heat therapy (NYCH therapy) based on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the treatment of radiotherapy-induced oral mucositis (RTOM) in nasopharyngeal carcinomas (NPCs). A total of eight online databases were searched from inception to September 2021 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The control group was treated with Western medicine (WM) alone, whereas the experimental group was treated with a combined NYCH and WM therapy. A total of 30 RCTs involving 2562 participants were ultimately included. NYCH therapy combined with conventional WM delayed the onset time (days) of RTOM (MD = 10.80, p < 0.001), and at that time, a higher cumulative radiotherapy dose (Gy) (MD = 5.72, p < 0.001) was completed in the experimental group. The combination regimen also reduced the incidence of severe oral mucositis (Grade III-IV) (RR = 0.25, p < 0.001). In addition, the treatment efficacy of the experimental group was significantly better than that of the control group (RR = 1.31, p < 0.001). Compared with the patients in the control group, the experimental group had lower xerostomia scores (MD = -1.07, p < 0.001) and more saliva (MD = 0.36, p < 0.001). NYCH combined with WM improved the efficacy of treating RTOM in NPC. This study provides a sufficient basis for conducting further large RCTs to prove the efficacy of NYCH.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35529930 PMCID: PMC9068295 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4436361
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
The basic characteristics of all included randomized controlled trials' studies.
| Study | No | Age | Male | Female | Intervention | Radiation dose evaluation | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (E/C) | (E/C) | (E/C) | (E/C) | (E/C) | |||
| [ | 140/140 | mean = 45.3Y/ mean = 44.9Y | 86/88 | 54/52 | NYCH therapy + D1, D4, D8, D11, D12, D15/D1, D4, D8, D11, D12, D15 | 72 to 78 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 23/18 | 24 to 68 (mean = 52.2) Y | 27 | 14 | NYCH therapy + D10/D10 | 60 to 76 Gy | TER, XS, |
| SFR | |||||||
| [ | 47/47 | 26 to 69 (mean = 51.05 ± 6.47) Y/29 to 68 (50.61 ± 6.89) Y | 33/32 | 14/15 | NYCH therapy + D1, D4, D11/D1, D4, D11 | 60 to 75 Gy | TER |
| [ | 42/42 | 43 to 71 (mean = 56.54 ± 6.37) Y/45 to 73 (mean = 57.89 ± 6.19) Y | 29/27 | 13/15 | NYCH therapy + D11/D11 | 68 to 76 Gy | XS, SFR |
| [ | 30/30 | 35 to 72 (mean = 56.7 ± 8.9) Y/38 to 75 (mean = 58.3 ± 10.4) Y | 17/20 | 13/10 | NYCH therapy + D14/D14 | 68 to 74 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 32/32 | mean = 52.91 ± 3,.82Y/mean = 53.57 ± 4.25Y | 19/18 | 13/14 | NYCH therapy + D1, D4, D11/D1, D4, D11 | NA | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 25/25 | mean = 49.6 ± 5.6Y/ mean = 50.1 ± 6.0Y | 15/13 | 10/12 | NYCH therapy + D15/D15 | NA | TER |
| [ | 40/40 | 30 to 72 (mean = 55.15 ± 6.01) Y/30 to 73(mean = 54.61 ± 5.92) Y | 28/26 | 12/14 | NYCH therapy + D14/D14 | 66 to 72 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 51/51 | mean = 52 ± 1.27Y/ mean = 54 ± 2.01Y | 30/32 | 21/19 | NYCH therapy + D17/D17 | 64 to 70.4 Gy | TER, XS, |
| SFR | |||||||
| He et al. 2017 | 100/100 | 21 to 71Y/23 to 69Y | 72/74 | 28/26 | NYCH therapy + D2/D2 | NA | OMR (TC) |
| [ | 52/49 | 20 to 70 (mean = 45) Y/22 to 71(mean = 46) Y | 42/40 | 10/9 | NYCH therapy + D14/D14 | 68 to 72 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 40/40 | mean = 47.76 ± 5.37Y/mean = 48.23 ± 5.72Y | 27/25 | 13/15 | NYCH therapy + D15/D15 | 68 to 74 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| Li et al. 2008 | 67/67 | mean = 46.6Y/ mean = 46.1Y | 57/51 | 10/16 | NYCH therapy + D14/D14 | 62 to 74 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| Li et al. 2018 | 40/40 | mean = 44.48 ± 5.23Y/mean = 44.75 ± 4.72Y | 29/26 | 11/14 | NYCH therapy + D1, D6, D9/D1, D6, D9 | 70 Gy | TER, OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 30/30 | 24 to 78 (mean = 43) Y | 42∗ | 18∗ | NYCH therapy + D1, D5, D9, D14/D1, D5, D9, D14 | 68 to 72 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 41/41 | mean = 52.80 ± 7.26Y/mean = 52.43 ± 7.18Y | 27/25 | 14/16 | NYCH therapy + D16/D16 | 66 to 72 Gy | TER, OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 30/30 | 19 to 66 (mean = 46.33 ± 11.85) Y/18 to 69(mean = 44.90 ± 13.32) Y | 21/18 | 9/12 | NYCH therapy + D17/D17 | 64 to 70 Gy | TER |
| [ | 31/31 | mean = 43.20 ± 7.79Y/ mean = 43.4 ± 8.86Y | 22/24 | 9/7 | NYCH therapy + D1, D4, D6, D9/D1, D4, D6, D9 | 66 to 70 Gy | OMR (G III–IV), OMR (TC) |
| Shen et al. 2012 | 40/40 | mean = 50.22 ± 10.17Y/mean = 50.65 ± 11.25Y | 31/29 | 9/11 | NYCH therapy + D1, D4, D6/D1, D4, D6 | 70 to 74 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 40/40 | 21 to 68 (mean = 47.5) Y/23 to 70(mean = 48.5) Y | NA | NA | NYCH therapy + D17/D17 | 60 to 70 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 30/30 | mean = 46.3 ± 11.5Y/mean = 45.3 ± 13.0Y | 25/24 | 5/6 | NYCH therapy + D2/D2 | 60 to 70 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 45/40 | mean = 50.34 ± 12.06Y/mean = 52.83 ± 8.37Y | 24/25 | 21/15 | NYCH therapy + D1, D4, D7/D1, D4, D7 | 68 to 76 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 37/37 | 24 to 71 (mean = 45.41 ± 1.50) Y/23 to 71 (mean = 45.32 ± 1.51) Y | 25/22 | 12/15 | NYCH therapy + D17/D17 | 60 to 75 Gy | TER, OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 34/34 | 45∼72 (57.26 ± 9.71)/46∼70(57.05 ± 8.82) | 20/21 | 14/13 | NYCH therapy + D11/D11 | NA | OMR (G III–IV) |
| Yuan et al. 2006 | 28/26 | 30 to 70 (mean = 48.5) Y/25 to 72(mean = 46.8) Y | 15/14 | 13/12 | NYCH therapy + D17/D17 | 60 to 70 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| [ | 48/48 | 21 to 72 (mean = 45) Y/20 to 72(mean = 46) Y | 40/40 | 8/8 | NYCH therapy + D1, D4, D6, D9, D13/D1, D4, D6, D9, D13 | 68 to 76 Gy | OMR (G III–IV), OMR (TC) |
| [ | 32/30 | 30 to 64 (mean = 48.4) Y/29 to 64(mean = 49.3) Y | 18/18 | 14/12 | NYCH therapy + D17/D17 | 70 to 76 Gy | SFR |
| [ | 21/20 | 30 to 72(mean = 46) Y/27 to 69(mean = 50) Y | 13/11 | 8/9 | NYCH therapy + D17/D17 | 68 to 70 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
| Zhou et al. 2015 | 14/14 | 32 to 63(mean = 47.5) Y/38 to 66(mean = 48.1) Y | 8/7 | 6/7 | NYCH therapy + D10/D10 | 60 to 76 Gy | TER, XS |
| Zou et al. 2005 | 60/60 | 18 to 72(mean = 42) Y/20 to 73(mean = 43) Y | 55/54 | 5/6 | NYCH therapy + D14/D14 | 68 to 72 Gy | OMR (G III–IV) |
Note. NYCH therapy = nourishing Yin and clearing heat therapy; E/C = experimental groups/control groups; Y = year(s); male and female not grouped; NA= not applicable; D = drug; D1 = gentamicin; D2 = metronidazole; D3 = tinidazole; D4 = dexamethasone; D5 = prednisone; D6 = lidocaine; D7 = procaine; D8 = tetracaine; D9 = vitamin B12; D10 = vitamin C; D11 = Kangfuxin solution; D12 = recombinant human epidermal growth factor, rhEGF; D13 = chymotrypsin; D14 = compound borax solution; D15 = compound chlorhexidine gargle; D16 = recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor injection, rhG-CSF; D17 = conventional Western medicine; TER = total effective rate; OMR (G III–IV) = Grade III–IV oral mucositis; OMR (TC) = time and cumulative of oral mucositis; XS = xerostomia score; SFR=saliva dynamic total flow rate.
Figure 1The flow diagram of the study selection process.
Figure 2Risk of bias graph and summary. Each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies and each risk of bias domain for each included study.
Figure 3Forest plot of total effective rate, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) showed better effect than Western medicine (WM) alone with statistical significance (RR = 1.31, p > 0.001).
Figure 4Forest plots of oral mucositis, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) showed a better effect than Western medicine (WM) alone with statistical significance. (a) Grade III–IV oral mucositis (RR = 0.25, p < 0.001), (b) Grade IV oral mucositis (RR = 0.19, p < 0.001), and (c) Grade III–IV oral mucositis. When radiation doses reached 40 Gy (RR = 0.26, p < 0.001) and 70 Gy (RR = 0.10, p < 0.001). Funnel plots of oral mucositis, (d) Grade III–IV oral mucositis were not bilaterally symmetric, suggesting the possibility of publication bias, (e) Grade IV oral mucositis was bilaterally symmetric, suggesting no publication bias.
Figure 5Forest plot of occurrence time (days) (MD = 10.80, p < 0.001) and accumulated dose (Gy) (MD = 5.72, p < 0.001). Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) showed better effect than Western medicine (WM) alone with statistical significance.
Figure 6Forest plot of xerostomia score (MD = -1.07, p < 0.001) and stimulated total saliva flow rate (MD = 0.36, p < 0.001). Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) showed better effect than Western medicine (WM) alone with statistical significance.
High frequency monomer of TCM used 10 times or more.
| Herbs | RCT |
|---|---|
|
| 29 |
|
| 27 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 16 |
|
| 14 |
| Moutan bark | 11 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 10 |