|
| Qingkailing Injection (清开灵注射液) for Treatment of Children Pneumonia Induced by Respiratory Syncytial Virus: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials |
| |
| View Full Text View/Add Comment Download reader |
|
| KeyWord:Qingkailing Injection, respiratory syncytial virus, ribavirin, pneumonia, children, respiratory tract infection, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, Chinese medicine |
|
| Hits: 1146 |
| Download times: 0 |
| Abstract: |
| Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Qingkailing Injection (清开灵注射液, QKL) for treatment of children pneumonia caused by respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Methods: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing QKL with ribavirin injection in the treatment of children pneumonia induced by RSV were searched in PubMed, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Chinese VIP database, CNKI and Wanfang databases from their inception to March 2014. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.2 software. The methodological quality of the selected RCTs was evaluated by the Modified Jadad Score. The primary outcome measures were effective rate and the secondary outcomes were relief time of fever and cough. Results: Seven RCTs with 992 cases published from 2008 to 2013 were identified. The meta-analysis results indicated that QKL was more effective in cure rate [risk ratios (RR)=1.32, 95% CI (1.17, 1.50), P<0.01], total effective rate [RR=1.07, 95% CI (1.02, 1.13), P=0.009] and less fever clearance time [mean difference=–0.73, 95% CI (–1.22, –0.23), P=0.004], compared with ribavirin injection in the treatment of RSV-induced children pneumonia. No dead case was reported in all trials. There were 3 trials mentioned adverse events, 2 reported no obvious adverse event occurred while 1 reported adverse events described as skin hypersensitivity, elevation of ALT, a mild abnormal of hepatic and renal function in both QKL and ribavirin group. Conclusions: QKL was an effective and relatively safe option for the treatment of RSV-induced children pneumonia. These therapeutic effects were promising but need to be interpreted with caution due to variations in the treatment and methodological weakness in the studies. |
| Close |
|
|
|
