Comparison of 4 kinds of traditional Chinese medicine injections to assist in improving clinical indicators of patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: At present, apart from lung transplantation, no drugs can effectively treat idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF). Therefore, it is imperative to explore new drugs to control or treat it. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injections have been widely used in the field of IPF, but there is no comparison of their efficacy in the assisted improvement of IPF. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to network meta-analyze the efficacy and safety of 4 kinds of commonly used TCM injections assisted by conventional treatment to improve the disease.

Methods: Used a computer to find the Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) from the 8 major databases (PubMed, EMbase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, CBM, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, WanFang Database and VIP Chinese Science). Cochrane's risk assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the literature. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach served to assess the certainty in the evidence of direct and indirect estimates. Revman5.3 (Review Manager (RevMan) Version 5.3. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.) and stata14.0 (Stata/SE 14.0 for Windows (64-bit). Revision Apr 22, 2015.Copyright 1985-2015 StataCorp LP). were used for Statistical analysis. Registration number: CRD42020220570.

Results: After layer-by-layer screening, 20 RCTs were finally included, which include a total of 1363 patients and 4 kinds of RCT of TCM injection (12 studies on Danhong injection, 5 studies on Ligustrazine injection, 2 studies on Huangqi injection and 1 study on Dazhu hongjingtian injection). The results showed: Clinical effective rate: Danhong Injection (Odds ratio [OR] = 3.94, 95% CI [2.34, 6.64], moderate certainty of evidence), Huangqi injection (OR = 3.40, 95% CI [1.38, 8.41], moderate certainty of evidence) and Ligustrazine injection (OR = 2.74, 95% CI [1.62, 4.64], moderate certainty of evidence) combined with conventional treatment had better curative efficacy than that of the conventional treatment group. SUCRA Ranking: Danhong (80.5) > Huangqi (68.5) > Ligustrazine (52.9) > Dazhu hongjingtian (44.3) > Conventional treatment (3.8); Forced Expiratory Volume In 1s/Forced vital capacity%: SUCRA Ranking: Danhong (80.0) > Ligustrazine (62.9) > Conventional treatment (2.1); Carbon monoxide diffusing capacity%: SUCRA Ranking: Ligustrazine (89.9) > Dazhu hongjingtian (63.4) > Danhong (44.9) > Conventional treatment (1.8); Partial pressure of Oxygen: SUCRA Ranking: Dazhu Hongjingtian (87.1) > Danhong (78.8) > Ligustrazine (34.0) > Conventional treatment (0.0); Partial pressure of carbon dioxide: SUCRA Ranking: Danhong (99.3) > Ligustrazine (50.3) > Conventional treatment (0.4). No obvious adverse reactions were found in all studies.

Conclusion: The four TCM injections combined with conventional treatment can effectively improve the clinical indicators of patients with IPF, and the improvement effect of Danhong injection was more obvious.