炎琥宁注射液治疗小儿病毒性肺炎疗效和安全性的系统评价

目的:系统评价炎琥宁射液治疗小儿病毒性肺炎的疗效和安全性。方法:计算机检索CBM,CNKI,VIP,Wanfang以及Pub Med,查找有关炎琥宁射液治疗小儿病毒性肺炎的临床随机对照试验。根据纳入及排除标准筛选文献,按照Jadad质量评价标准进行评价,采用Revman 5.3软件进行Meta分析。结果:共10个临床随机对照试验纳入系统评价,Meta分析结果显示:炎琥宁注射液治疗小儿病毒性肺炎在临床总有效率[OR=4.54,95%CI(2.73,7.56),P0.000 01],退热时间[MD=-1.15,95%CI(-1.58,-0.71),P0.000 01],咳嗽消失时间[MD=-2.07,95%CI(-3.08,-1.07),P0.000 1],肺啰音消失时间[MD=-2.24,95%CI(-2.53,-1.94),P0.000 01]方面优于对照组,其差异有统计学意义。结论:炎琥宁注射液治疗小儿病毒性肺炎可显著提高有效率,缩短发热时间,减轻患儿咳嗽症状,加速肺啰音消失,且未见明显的不良反应。但现有小样本的临床随机对照试验方法学和报告质量偏低,还需要高质量、大样本临床研究进一步证实。

Systematic Review on Efficacy and Safety of Yanhuning Injection Treatment for Children with Viral Pneumonia

Objective: To systemically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Yanhuning injection for the children with viral pneumonia. Method: We searched CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang and PubMed for the randomized controlled trials on Yanhuning injection treatment for children with viral pneumonia. The studies were screened according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the trials were evaluated according to Jadad quality assessment criteria, then Revman 5.3 software was used for Meta-analysis. Result: A total of 10 randomized controlled trials were included in the systematic review. Meta analysis showed that:the total clinical effective rate [OR=4.54, 95%CI (2.73, 7.56), P<0.000 01], fever abatement time [MD=-1.15, 95%CI (-1.58, -0.71), P<0.000 01], cough disappearing time [MD=-2.07, 95%CI (-3.08, -1.07), P<0.000 1], and pulmonary rales disappearing time [MD=-2.24, 95%CI (-2.53, -1.94), P<0.000 01] in Yanhuning injection group were better than those in control group in the treatment of children with viral pneumonia, with statistically significant difference. Conclusion: Yanhuning injection in the treatment of viral pneumonia in children can significantly improve efficiency and shorten the duration of fever, relieve cough symptoms in children, and accelerate the disappearance of pulmonary rales, without significant adverse reactions. However, the existing small sample randomized controlled trials had low methodological and reporting quality, so further high-quality, large-scale clinical studies are required for confirmation.