| Literature DB >> 36164403 |
Shengzhen Ye1,2, Xueer Zhang1,2, Guihua Ling1,2, Xianjun Xiao1, Dan Huang1,2, Mingling Chen2.
Abstract
Chinese herbal medicine has many advantages in the treatment of chronic urticaria (CU). Herein, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the Runzao Zhiyang (RZZY, Chinese patent herbal medicine capsule) capsule for CU through a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). This meta-analysis included 17 RCTs involving 1,760 patients. RZZY capsule combined with conventional drugs showed a better clinical total effective rate (risk ratio (RR) = 1.20, 95% confidence interval (CI) (1.15, 1.24), P < 0.00001), significantly reduced the adverse reaction rate [RR = 0.68, 95% CI (0.50, 0.92), P=0.01] and recurrence rate [RR = 0.29, 95% CI (0.18, 0.46), P < 0.00001], and improved the life quality of patients (mean difference (MD) = -2.95, 95% CI (-4.32, -1.57), P=0.0001). Meanwhile, the serum Interleukin-4 (IL-4) (MD = -13.83, 95% CI (-23.45, -4.20), P=0.005) and immunoglobulin E (IgE) (MD = -22.99, 95% CI (-31.48, -14.50), P < 0.00001) of patients in the intervention group decreased more significantly. In all, the RZZY capsule has potential therapeutic advantages and is relatively safe for CU. However, we are cautious about the conclusion, which needs to be further confirmed by more large samples, multicenter, and high-quality research in the later stage.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36164403 PMCID: PMC9509263 DOI: 10.1155/2022/1904598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.650
Figure 1Flow diagram of study selection process.
Basic characteristics of included articles.
| Author | Cases | Gender | Age | Treatment | Duration | Outcomes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| I/C | I/C | I/C | I/C | I/C | ||
| Zhou [ | 55/53 | (M31/F24)/ | 35.26 ± 1.37/ | RZ + C/Ebastine | 4 w | ①②③④ |
| (M30/F23) | 35.19 ± 1.31 | 10 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Zhang [ | 45/45 | (M23/F22)/ | 40.25 ± 1.7/ | RZ + C/Levocetirizine | 28 d | ① |
| (M24/F21) | 40.15 ± 1.25 | 5 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Chen et al. [ | 35/35 | (M19/F16)/ | 39.08 ± 3.2/ | RZ + C/Ebastine | 4 w | ①②④⑤⑥ |
| (M17/F18) | 37.89 ± 4.35 | 10 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Ai [ | 24/24 | (M14/F10)/ | 35.25 ± 1.39/ | RZ + C/Levocetirizine | 8 w | ①②⑤ |
| (M13/F11) | 35.12 ± 1.46 | 10 mg po qddsb | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Cheng [ | 50/50 | (M28/F22)/ | 26.21 ± 2.11/ | RZ + C/Epinastine | 4 w | ①② |
| (M27/F23) | 26.26 ± 2.24 | 10 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Li [ | 50/50 | (M26/F24)/ | 48.56 ± 3.26/ | RZ + C/Olopatadine | 4 w | ①② |
| (M25/F25) | 49.95 ± 3.86 | 5 mg po bid | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Li and Zhang [ | 45/45 | (M27/F18)/ | 30.5 ± 4.2/ | RZ + C/Levocetirizine | 4 w | ① |
| (M25/F20) | 25.6 ± 3.9 | 5 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Yang [ | 61/61 | (M30/F31)/ | 31.8 ± 10.6/ | RZ + C/Desloratadine | 4 w | ①② |
| (M29/F32) | 30.5 ± 9.8 | 5 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Liu and Yang [ | 50/50 | (M28/F22)/ | 47.6/48.3 | RZ + C/Levocetirizine | 8 w | ①②③ |
| (M31/F19) | 5 mg po qd | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Bian et al. [ | 106/94 | (M60/F46)/ | 34.93 ± 2.53/ | RZ + C/Loratadine | 4 w | ①②③⑤⑥ |
| (M56/F38) | 35.13 ± 2.15 | 10 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Lv [ | 59/59 | (M29/F30)/ | 40.59 ± 11.91/ | RZ + C/Ebastine | 4 w | ①② |
| (M33/F26) | 40.92 ± 12.02 | 20 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Li et al. [ | 35/35 | (M18/F17)/ | 34.23 ± 9.86/ | RZ + C/Fexofenadine | 8 w | ①②③ |
| (M19/F16) | 33.12 ± 11.13 | 60 mg po bid | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Feng et al. [ | 60/60 | (M32/F28)/ | 34.5/36.5 | RZ + C/Desloratadine | 4 w | ①②③⑥ |
| (M24/F36) | Citrate disodium | |||||
| 8.8 mg po qd | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Xu et al. [ | 50/50 | (M23/F27)/ | 33.5 ± 5.7/ | RZ + C/Levocetirizine | 4 w | ①②⑥ |
| (M21/F29) | 30.9 ± 6.7 | 5 mg po qd | ||||
|
| ||||||
| Xu et al. [ | 50/50 | (M29/F21)/ | 33.9 ± 16.6/ | RZ + C/Ebastine | 4 w | ①④ |
| (M27/F23) | 33.1 ± 16.3 | 10 mg po bid/1th W; | ||||
| qd/2th W; qod/3th W; | ||||||
| 3 times/4th W | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Wu and Zhou [ | 68/66 | (M35/F33)/ | 29.5/30.2 | RZ + C/Epinastine | 4 w | ①② |
| (M34/F32) | 10 mg po qd | |||||
|
| ||||||
| Wang and Fang [ | 46/46 | (M30/F16)/ | 35.8 ± 1.5/ | RZ + C/Mizolastine | 4 w | ①②③ |
| (M28/F18) | 35.7 ± 1.6 | 10 mg po qd | ||||
I, intervention group; C, control group; M, male; F, female; RZ, Runzao Zhiyang capsule (2 g po tid); w, weeks; d, days; ① total effective rate; ② adverse reaction rate; ③ recurrence rate; ④ Dermatology Life of Quality Index; ⑤ IL-4 level; and ⑥ IgE level.
Figure 2Risk of bias graph.
Figure 3Risk of bias summary.
Methodological quality evaluation of articles.
| Author | Random sequence generation | Allocation concealment | Blind method | Incomplete outcome data | Selective reporting | Other bias |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhou [ | “Random” word | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Zhang [ | Random number table | NM | NM | N | N | N |
| Chen et al. [ | Random number table | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Ai [ | Random touch ball | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Cheng [ | Random number table | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Li [ | Random number table | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Li and Zhang [ | “Random” word | NM | NM | N | N | N |
| Yang [ | “Random” word | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Liu and Yang [ | “Random” word | NM | NM | N | N | N |
| Bian et al. [ | “Random” word | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Lv [ | “Random” word | NM | NM | N | N | N |
| Li et al. [ | Random number table | NM | NM | N | N | N |
| Feng et al. [ | Random number table | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Xu et al. [ | According to the single and even number of visit tail number | NM | NM | 2 cases were not followed up | N | N |
| Xu et al. [ | According to the examining sequence | NM | Nonblind | N | N | N |
| Wu and Zhou [ | According to the examining sequence | NM | NM | N | N | N |
| Wang and Fang [ | Random number table | SAS system | Nonblind | N | N | N |
N, no; NM, not mentioned.
Figure 4Risk ratio of total effective rate.
Figure 5Risk ratio of adverse reaction rate.
Figure 6Risk ratio of recurrence rate.
Figure 7Mean difference of DLQI.
Figure 8Mean difference of IL-4.
Figure 9Mean difference of IgE.
Figure 10Funnel plot of total effective rate.
Figure 11Funnel plot of adverse reaction rate.
Summary of findings.
| Outcomes | No of participants (studies) follow-up | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Anticipated absolute effects | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Risk with antihistamines | Risk difference with RZZY capsule + antihistamines | ||||
| Total effective rate | 1760 | ⊕⊕⃝⃝ | RR 1.20 | 804 per 1,000 | 161 more per 1,000 |
| (17 RCTs) | Lowa,d | (1.15 to 1.24) | (121 more to 193 more) | ||
|
| |||||
| Adverse reaction rate | 1482 | ⊕⊕⊕⃝ | RR 0.68 | 127 per 1,000 | 41 fewer per 1,000 |
| (14 RCTs) | Moderatea | (0.50 to 0.92) | (63 fewer to 10 fewer) | ||
|
| |||||
| Recurrence rate | 503 | ⊕⊕⃝⃝ | RR 0.29 | 246 per 1,000 | 174 fewer per 1,000 |
| (6 RCTs) | Lowa | (0.18 to 0.46) | (201 fewer to 133 fewer) | ||
|
| |||||
| Dermatology life of quality index | 278 | ⊕⃝⃝⃝ | — | — | MD 2.95 lower |
| (3 RCTs) | Very lowa,b,c | (4.32 lower to 1.57 lower) | |||
|
| |||||
| Serum interleukin-4 | 318 | ⊕⃝⃝⃝ | — | — | MD 13.83 lower |
| (3 RCTs) | Very lowa,b,c | (23.45 lower to 4.2 lower) | |||
|
| |||||
| Immunoglobulin E | 488 | ⊕⊕⃝⃝ | — | — | MD 22.99 lower |
| (4 RCTs) | Lowa,c | (31.48 lower to 14.5 lower) | |||
The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio. GRADE working group grades of evidence. High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty (⊕⊕⊕⃝): we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty (⊕⊕⃝⃝): our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty (⊕⃝⃝⃝): we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect. Explanations: athe blinding method was not used. bnumber of patients included was less than 400. cI square value was large. dpublication bias strongly suspected. RZZY capsule combined with conventional drugs compared to conventional drugs for people with chronic urticaria. Patient or population: patients with chronic urticaria. Intervention: RZZY capsule combined with antihistamines. Comparison: antihistamines.