Jiang Hongli, Liu Wei, Li Guanhong, Fan Tao, Mao Bing
Altern Ther Health Med. 2016 Mar;22(3):38-51.
Context • Upper airway cough syndrome (UACS), previously called postnasal drip syndrome (PNDS), has been considered universally to be one of the most common causes of chronic cough. As an important part of complementary and alternative therapy, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has found an exact curative therapy for chronic cough through clinical practice for thousands of years. Objective • The aim of the current review was to investigate systematically the beneficial and adverse effects of Chinese medicinal herbs (CMH) in the treatment of UACS. Design • The research team performed searches in 11 main databases from respective inception to October 31, 2015, supplemented with manual retrieval of other data. Only randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) reporting on the effectiveness of CMH in patients with UACS were included. Descriptive and quantitative data on the studies' designs, population demographics, interventions, outcomes, and methodological quality were extracted and tabulated. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias system and the quality of the evidence was evaluated using the Grades of Recommendation Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Participants • The reviewed studies included 1355 participants-720 in the CMH groups and 635 in the control groups-of both genders, from various professional and ethnic groups, and with a wide range of ages. They all had a duration of cough symptoms of longer than 8 wk and a clinical diagnosis of chronic cough induced by UACS that was supported by appropriate physical findings. Outcome Measures • The primary outcomes included (1) TCM recovery rate and (2) TCM cough symptom score. TCM's curative effect was calculated as the cumulative percentage of the symptom-score reduction (PSSR), estimated between baseline and postintervention. The cough symptom scores were graded according to the Chinese Criteria Guiding Principle of Clinical Research on New Drugs of TCM, with the scores being classified into 4 grades. Those scores ranged from 0-3 (ie, 0, 1, 2, 3, respectively), or 0-9 (ie, 0, 3, 6, 9, respectively), with the higher scores signifying a more frequent and severe cough. Results • A total of 16 studies that had been published in Chinese journals was ultimately identified for the review. The majority of methodological judgments demonstrated an unclear risk of bias. A meta-analysis was conducted using a random effects model due to the poor homogeneity of the studies. Compared with Western medicine (WM), patients in both the CMH groups and the integrated therapy groups showed (1) a higher TCM recovery rate; (2) better relief of primary symptoms, including cough and postnasal dripping; (3) a reduction in physical signs, including the cobblestone appearance of the oropharyngeal mucosa or mucus in the oropharynx; and (4) a lower risk of cough relapse. No severe adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusions • CMH may be a safe and effective alternative for the treatment of UACS. The study highlighted the paucity of reliable clinical evidence for CMH and the need for RCTs of higher quality in the future.
背景 • 上气道咳嗽综合征(UACS),以前称为鼻后滴漏综合征(PNDS),一直被普遍认为是慢性咳嗽最常见的原因之一。作为补充和替代疗法的重要组成部分,传统中医(TCM)历经数千年的临床实践,已找到针对慢性咳嗽的确切治疗方法。
目的 • 本综述的目的是系统研究中药(CMH)治疗UACS的有益和不良影响。
设计 • 研究团队对11个主要数据库从各自创建到2015年10月31日进行了检索,并辅以其他数据的手工检索。仅纳入报告CMH对UACS患者有效性的随机对照试验(RCT)。提取并列表了关于研究设计、人群统计学、干预措施、结局和方法学质量的描述性和定量数据。使用Cochrane偏倚风险系统评估方法学质量,并使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)系统评估证据质量。
参与者 • 纳入综述的研究包括1355名参与者,CMH组720名,对照组635名,涵盖不同性别、职业和种族群体,年龄范围广泛。他们的咳嗽症状持续时间均超过8周,并且有UACS诱发的慢性咳嗽的临床诊断,并有相应的体格检查结果支持。
结局指标 • 主要结局包括:(1)中医治愈率;(2)中医咳嗽症状评分。中医治疗效果以症状评分降低的累积百分比(PSSR)计算,在基线和干预后进行估算。咳嗽症状评分根据《中药新药临床研究指导原则》进行分级,评分分为4级。评分范围为0 - 3(即分别为0、1、2、3)或0 - 9(即分别为0、3、6、9),分数越高表示咳嗽越频繁、越严重。
结果 • 最终确定了16项发表于中文期刊的研究纳入综述。大多数方法学判断显示偏倚风险不明确。由于研究同质性差,采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。与西药(WM)相比,CMH组和中西医结合治疗组的患者均表现出:(1)更高的中医治愈率;(2)主要症状(包括咳嗽和鼻后滴漏)缓解更好;(3)体征减轻,包括口咽黏膜鹅卵石样外观或口咽黏液减少;(4)咳嗽复发风险降低。两组均未发生严重不良事件。
结论 • CMH可能是治疗UACS的一种安全有效的替代方法。该研究突出了CMH可靠临床证据的匮乏以及未来高质量RCT的必要性。