Shuanghuanglian oral preparations combined with azithromycin for treatment of Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia in Asian children: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
<h4>Background</h4>Mycoplasma pneumoniae is one of the main causes of community-acquired pneumonia. Due to the imperfect immune system of children, this also causes Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) to be more common in children. Globally, the incidence of MPP in children is graduall...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/1650ad0c80af4630a22bceb8ce290f14 |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | <h4>Background</h4>Mycoplasma pneumoniae is one of the main causes of community-acquired pneumonia. Due to the imperfect immune system of children, this also causes Mycoplasma pneumoniae pneumonia (MPP) to be more common in children. Globally, the incidence of MPP in children is gradually increasing. This study was the first to systematically review the clinical efficacy and safety of Shuanghuanglian (SHL) oral preparations combined with azithromycin in the treatment of MPP in children.<h4>Methods</h4>This study fully retrieved 3 Chinese databases and 5 English databases to search the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin in the treatment of children with MPP. The search time is from the inception to September 2020. Data extraction and risk bias evaluation were performed independently by two researchers. We conducted a Meta-analysis of all the outcome indicators. Besides, Meta-regression, subgroup analysis, and heterogeneity analysis were used for the primary outcomes to find the possible potential confounding factors.<h4>Results</h4>Finally, we included 27 RCTs involving 2884 patients. SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin were better than azithromycin alone in response rate (RR = 1.14, 95% CI[1.11, 1.18]; low certainty evidence), disappearance time of fever(MD = -1.72, 95% CI[-2.47, -0.97]; low certainty evidence), disappearance time of cough (MD = -2.95, 95% CI[-3.55, -2.34]; low certainty evidence), and disappearance time of pulmonary rales (MD = -2.13, 95% CI[-2.88, -1.38]; low certainty evidence). The Meta-regression results showed that the course of disease, age, and method of administration may be the source of heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis have found that the results were stable. For other related clinical symptoms, T lymphocytes, and Serum inflammatory factors, SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin was better than azithromycin alone, and the difference was statistically significant. For adverse events with low certainty evidence, safety needs further verification.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Based on the results of meta-analysis with low certainty evidence, we believed that SHL oral preparations combined with azithromycin likely be effectively improved clinical symptoms compared with azithromycin alone. Low certainty evidence showed that SHL may safety with no serious adverse events. Due to these limitations, the safety needs further verification. More high-quality, multicenter, and large-sample RCTs should be tested and verified in the future. |
|---|