| Literature DB >> 35941975 |
Abstract
Acupoint application has been used in China to treat various illnesses for ages. In cough variant asthma (CVA), the main clinical sign is episodic night cough. Acupoint application therapy of traditional Chinese medicine is an effective procedure to treat cough variant asthma. The current study is designed to systematically assess the effectiveness of acupoint application therapy in traditional medicine for patients with cough variant asthma. The comprehensive computer retrieval related to comparison between acupoint application and nonacupoint application therapy for cough variant asthma was carried out in various databases (n = 8) from database establishment until July 4, 2021. Both English and Chinese articles about original investigations in humans were searched. Two independent authors extracted the data, and disagreements were resolved by discussion. ReviewManager 5.3 software provided by Cochrane did a meta-analysis of selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Quality of experimentation and risk bias were analyzed by the Cochrane Handbook tool. A total of thirteen randomized controlled clinical articles along with 1237 patients were included in the study. Findings of meta-analysis showed that compared with nonacupoint application treatment, the total effective rate of acupoint application treatment is more effective (RD = 0.13, 95% CI (0.09, 0.17), Z = 6.70, P < 0.00001). Besides, acupoint application can improve patients' lung function, the lung function index FVC (mean difference = 0.55, 95% confidence interval (0.42, 0.68), Z = 8.40, P < 0.00001), FEV1 (MD = 0.35, 95% CI (0.23, 0.47), Z = 5.86, P < 0.00001), FEV1/FVC (%) (MD = 12.68, 95% CI (4.32, 21.03), Z = 2.97, P = 0.003), FEV1 (%) (MD = 8.63, 95% CI (8.01, 9.25), Z = 27.44, P < 0.00001), and PEF (day) (MD = 0.62, 95% CI (0.52, 0.71), Z = 12.40, P < 0.00001) of patients treated by acupoint application therapy were increased. Moreover, acupoint application might lower the level of immunoglobulin E (MD = -54.58, 95% CI (-63.54, -45.61), Z = 11.93, P < 0.00001) and EOS (MD = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.35, -0.06), Z = 2.77, P = 0.006). The LCQ (Leicester cough questionnaire) total score of CVA patients was also increased (MD = 2.30, 95% CI (1.55, 3.06), Z = 5.98, P < 0.00001). Acupoint application therapy is effective in controlling symptoms of CVA. It also has a positive effect in improving lung function and life quality of patients. It can reduce the eosinophil levels and peripheral blood IgE levels of patients as well.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35941975 PMCID: PMC9356890 DOI: 10.1155/2022/4168308
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.246
Figure 1The process of literature search and study selection for the research.
Characteristics of studies.
| Study | Number of patients | Age | Gender (male/female) | Interventions | Control group | Intervention duration (day) | Outcome assessment | Length of follow-up | Region | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intervention group | Control group | |||||||||
| Yu Tong 2017 | 41 | 40 | 5.94 ± 1.28 | 45/36 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (1) | 30 | 1, 2 | 6 months | Zhejiang, China |
| Xue Ming 2018 | 45 | 45 | 6.54 ± 2.1 | 46/44 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (2) | 30 | 1, 5 | Not mentioned | Shanxi, China |
| Ma Ying 2018 | 66 | 66 | 4.77 ± 1.31 | 65/67 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (1) | 365 | 2, 4 | 1 year | Henan, China |
| Wang Long 2017 | 25 | 25 | 40.41 ± 6.39 | 20/30 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (2) | 28 | 1 | Not mentioned | Liaoning, China |
| Gao Xiyue 2017 | 31 | 31 | 8.95 ± 2.13 | 34/28 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (1) | 30 | 6 | 3 months | Sichuan, Chian |
| Ye Jianlin 2017 | 90 | 90 | 6.35 ± 2.27 | 96/84 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (2) | 28 | 1, 2 | Not mentioned | Guangdong, China |
| Li Limei 2019 | 30 | 30 | 5.62 ± 1.33 | 33/27 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (1) | 90 | 1 | Not mentioned | Guangdong, China |
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 60 | 60 | 7.28 ± 4.75 | 58/62 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (1) | 45 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | Not mentioned | Hunan, China |
| Tang Jianwen 2015 | 48 | 48 | 64.05 ± 8.70 | 54/42 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (3), (4) | 30 | 1, 2 | Not mentioned | Jiangsu, China |
| Zhao Qi 2018 | 42 | 42 | 6.13 ± 2.09 | 52/32 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (8) | 28 | 1, 2, 3, 4 | Not mentioned | Sichuan, Chian |
| Zhang Xiaoyan 2014 | 50 | 46 | 4.65 ± 1.60 | 55/41 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (5), (6) | 30 | 1 + 4 | Not mentioned | Hebei, China |
| Gou Li 2020 | 45 | 45 | 8.80 ± 0.80 | 44/46 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (1), (7) | 28 | 1, 6 | Not mentioned | Henan, China |
| Sui Aifeng 2015 | 48 | 48 | 65.31 ± 10.49 | 47/49 | Acupoint application+normal treatment | (3), (4) | 1095 | 1, 2 | Not mentioned | Liaoning, China |
Notes: (1) montelukast, (2) aminophylline, (3) salmeterol, (4) fluticasone propionate, (5) ketotifen, (6) procaterol, (7) budesonide, (8) salbutamol. 1: total effective rate; 2: lung functions (FVC, FEV1,FEV1/FVC, FEF, and PEF); 3: the peripheral blood eosinophil (EOS) count; 4: peripheral blood IgE content; 5: asthma control test(ACT) score; 6: Leicester cough questionnaire (LCQ).
Figure 2Assessment of the risk of bias of different research articles.
Evaluation of total effective rate by chi-square and fixed effect model.
| Study or subgroup | Experimental | Control | Weight | Risk Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Events | Total | Events | Total | M-H, fixed, 95% CI | ||
| Gou Li 2020 | 45 | 45 | 43 | 45 | 8.6% | 0.04 [-0.03, 0.12] |
| Li Limei 2019 | 29 | 30 | 21 | 30 | 5.8% | 0.27 [0.09, 0.44] |
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 58 | 60 | 52 | 60 | 11.5% | 0.10 [0.00, 0.20] |
| Sui Aifeng 2015 | 45 | 48 | 37 | 48 | 9.2% | 0.17 [0.03, 0.30] |
| Tang Jianwen 2015 | 45 | 48 | 37 | 48 | 9.2% | 0.17 [0.03, 0.30] |
| Wang Long 2017 | 22 | 25 | 18 | 25 | 4.8% | 0.16 [-0.06, 0.38] |
| Xue Ming 2018 | 41 | 45 | 39 | 45 | 8.6% | 0.04 [-0.09, 0.17] |
| Ye Jianlin 2017 | 85 | 90 | 75 | 90 | 17.3% | 0.11 [0.02, 0.20] |
| Yu Tong 2017 | 38 | 41 | 30 | 40 | 7.8% | 0.18 [0.02, 0.33] |
| Zhang Xiaoyan 2014 | 47 | 50 | 37 | 46 | 9.2% | 0.14 [0.00, 0.27] |
| Zhao Qi 2018 | 40 | 42 | 33 | 42 | 8.1% | 0.17 [0.03, 0.31] |
| Total (95% CI) | 524 | 519 | 100% | 0.13 [0.09, 0.17] | ||
| Total events | 495 | 422 | ||||
Heterogeneity: chi2 = 11.37; df = 10 (P = 0.33); I2 = 12%. Test for overall effect: Z = 6.70 (P < 0.00001).
Figure 3Analysis of the total effective rate for acupoint application therapy for CVA.
Figure 4The funnel plot of the analysis of the total effective rate to show the risk of bias.
FVC index of control and experimental groups to analyze the cumulative effect of research.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, random, 95% CI | ||||
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 4.04 | 0.49 | 60 | 3.45 | 0.57 | 60 | 27.0% | 0.59 [0.40, 0.78] |
| Ye Jianlin 2017 | 3.83 | 0.54 | 90 | 3.4 | 0.47 | 90 | 35.3% | 0.43 [0.28, 0.58] |
| Zhao Qi 2018 | 3.2 | 0.31 | 42 | 2.57 | 0.33 | 42 | 37.8% | 0.63 [0.49, 0.77] |
| Total (95% CI) | 192 | 192 | 100% | 0.55 [0.42, 0.68] | ||||
Heterogeneity: tau2 = 0.01; chi2 = 4.01; df = 2 (P = 0.13); I2 = 50%. Test for overall effect: Z = 8.40 (P < 0.00001).
Figure 5Analysis of lung function index FVC, which shows the effectiveness of acupoint application treatment in the experimental group.
Analysis of the lung function index FEV1 which shows statistically significant differences among subgroups.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, random, 95% CI | ||||
| 1.3.1 age ≤ 7 | ||||||||
| Ma Ying 2018 | 1.39 | 0.11 | 66 | 1.12 | 0.12 | 66 | 29.0% | 0.27 [0.23, 0.31] |
| Ye Jianlin 2017 | 2.6 | 0.43 | 90 | 2.2 | 0.36 | 90 | 23.2% | 0.40 [0.28, 0.52] |
| Yu Tong 2017 | 1.77 | 0.43 | 41 | 1.54 | 0.47 | 40 | 16.3% | 0.23 [0.03, 0.43] |
| Zhao Qi 2018 | 3.32 | 0.62 | 42 | 3.05 | 0.58 | 42 | 12.3% | 0.27 [0.01, 0.53] |
| Subtotal total (95% CI) | 239 | 238 | 80.8% | 0.30 [0.22, 0.37] | ||||
| Heterogeneity: tau2 = 0.00; chi2 = 4.62; df = 3 ( | ||||||||
| 1.3.2 age > 7 | ||||||||
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 3.22 | 0.43 | 60 | 2.65 | 0.47 | 60 | 19.2% | 0.57 [0.41, 0.73] |
| Subtotal Total (95% CI) | 60 | 60 | 19.2% | 0.57 [0.41, 0.73] | ||||
| Heterogeneity: not applicable | ||||||||
| Total (95% CI) | 299 | 298 | 100% | 0.35 [0.23, 0.47] | ||||
Heterogeneity: tau2 = 0.01; chi2 = 16.35; df = 4 (P = 0.003); I2 = 76%. Test for overall effect: Z = 5.86 (P < 0.00001). Test for subgroup difference: chi2 = 9.09; df = 1 (P = 0.003); I2 = 89.0%.
Figure 6Analysis of the lung function index FEV1 through random-effect analysis model.
Evaluation of effectiveness of acupoint application treatment on lung function of various groups of the research participants.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, random, 95% CI | ||||
| 1.4.1 intervention period≤30 days | ||||||||
| Ye Jianlin2017 | 62.76 | 6.41 | 90 | 57.71 | 5.54 | 90 | 33.7% | 5.05 [3.30, 6.80] |
| Subtotal total (95% CI) | 90 | 90 | 33.7% | 5.05 [3.30, 6.80] | ||||
| Heterogeneity: not applicable | ||||||||
| 1.4.2 intervention period > 30 days and intervention period ≤ 6 months | ||||||||
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 76.99 | 7.24 | 60 | 62.33 | 6.09 | 60 | 33.3% | 14.66 [12.27, 17.05] |
| Subtotal total (95% CI) | 60 | 60 | 33.3% | 14.66 [12.27, 17.05] | ||||
| Heterogeneity: not applicable | ||||||||
| 1.4.3 intervention period > 6 months | ||||||||
| Ma Ying 2018 | 80.78 | 8.11 | 66 | 62.33 | 7.32 | 66 | 33.1% | 18.45 [15.81, 21.09] |
| Subtotal total (95% CI) | 66 | 66 | 33.1% | 18.45 [15.81, 21.09] | ||||
| Heterogeneity: not applicable | ||||||||
| Total (95% CI) | 216 | 216 | 100% | 12.68 [4.32, 21.03] | ||||
Heterogeneity: tau2 = 53.16; chi2 = 83.74; df = 2 (P < 0.00001); I2 = 98%. Test for overall effect: Z = 2.97 (P = 0.003). Test for subgroup difference: chi2 = 83.74; df = 2 (P < 0.00001); I2 = 97.6%.
Figure 7Analysis of the lung function index FEV1_FVC (%), which shows the improvement in lung function due to AP.
Evaluation of effectiveness of AP therapy through pulmonary function index % through fixed-effect model.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, fixed, 95% CI | ||||
| Sui Aifeng 2015 | 79.28 | 2.1 | 48 | 70.65 | 2.25 | 48 | 50.1% | 8.63 [7.76, 9.50] |
| Tang Jianwen 2015 | 79.29 | 2.1 | 48 | 70.66 | 2.26 | 48 | 49.9% | 8.63 [7.76, 9.50] |
| Total (95% CI) | 96 | 96 | 100% | 8.63 [8.01, 9.25] | ||||
Heterogeneity: chi2 = 0.00; df = 1 (P = 1.00); I2 = 0%. Test for overall effect: Z = 27.44 (P < 0.00001).
Figure 8Analysis of the lung function index FEV1 (%) by fixed-effect model.
Analysis of pulmonary function index (day) of three screened reports through fixed-effect model.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, fixed, 95% CI | ||||
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 3.42 | 0.87 | 60 | 2.91 | 0.44 | 60 | 15.6% | 0.51 [0.26, 0.76] |
| Ma Ying 2018 | 3.32 | 0.31 | 66 | 2.67 | 0.33 | 66 | 79.6% | 0.65 [0.54, 0.76] |
| Zhao Qi 2018 | 6.36 | 1.03 | 42 | 5.95 | 1.04 | 42 | 4.8% | 0.41 [-0.03, 0.85] |
| Total (95% CI) | 168 | 168 | 100% | 0.62 [0.52, 0.71] | ||||
Heterogeneity: chi2 = 1.91; df = 2 (P = 0.38); I2 = 0%. Test for overall effect: Z = 12.40 (P < 0.00001).
Figure 9Analysis of the lung function index PEF to evaluate the cumulative effect of the AP treatment.
Level of IgE in peripheral blood as a measure of CVA.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, fixed, 95% CI | ||||
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 119.33 | 79.63 | 60 | 167.94 | 89.23 | 60 | 8.8% | -48.61 [-78.87, -18.35] |
| Ma Ying 2018 | 131.2 | 26.4 | 66 | 189.3 | 31.7 | 66 | 81.2% | -58.10 [-68.05, -48.15] |
| Xue Ming 2018 | 124.24 | 112.45 | 45 | 171.58 | 112.99 | 45 | 3.7% | -47.34 [-93.92, -0.76] |
| Zhang Xiaoyan 2014 | 136.61 | 115.56 | 50 | 158.94 | 127.27 | 46 | 3.4% | -22.33 [-71.10, 26.44] |
| Zhao Qi 2018 | 134.61 | 117.61 | 42 | 156.49 | 124.88 | 42 | 3.0% | -21.88 [-73.76, 30.00] |
| Total (95% CI) | 263 | 259 | 100% | -54.58 [-63.54, -45.61] | ||||
Heterogeneity: chi2 = 3.93; df = 4 (P = 0.42); I2 = 0%. Test for overall effect: Z = 11.93 (P < 0.00001).
Figure 10Analysis of the peripheral blood IgE level in patients suffering from CVA treated with acupoint application therapy.
Decrease in peripheral blood EOS count of experimental samples as compared to control samples.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, random, 95% CI | ||||
| Li Qiaoxiang 2017 | 1.09 | 0.33 | 60 | 1.23 | 0.21 | 60 | 55.4% | -0.14 [-0.24, -0.04] |
| Zhao Qi 2018 | 0.64 | 0.24 | 42 | 0.93 | 0.39 | 42 | 44.6% | -0.29 [-0.43, -0.15] |
| Total (95% CI) | 102 | 102 | 100% | -0.21 [-0.35, -0.06] | ||||
Heterogeneity: tau2 = 0.01; chi2 = 2.98; df = 1 (P = 0.08); I2 = 66%. Test for overall effect: Z = 2.77 (P = 0.006).
Figure 11Heterogeneity analysis of the EOS count to evaluate the homogeneity of research.
Fixed-effect model analysis which shows increase in LCQ score.
| Study or subgroup | Mean | Experimental | Mean | Control | Weight | Mean difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SD | Total | SD | Total | IV, fixed, 95% CI | ||||
| Gao Xiyue 2017 | 15.7 | 2.18 | 30 | 13.25 | 2.83 | 32 | 36.3% | 2.45 [1.20, 3.70] |
| Gou Li 2020 | 18.06 | 2.53 | 45 | 15.84 | 2.02 | 45 | 63.7% | 2.22 [1.27, 3.17] |
| Total (95% CI) | 75 | 77 | 100% | 2.30 [1.55, 3.06] | ||||
Heterogeneity: chi2 = 0.08; df = 1 (P = 0.77); I2 = 0%. Test for overall effect: Z = 5.98 (P < 0.00001).
Figure 12Heterogeneity analysis of the LCQ score of acupoint application.