Sunju Park

Although there were randomized control trials (RCTs) that showed the considerable efficacy of herbal medicine (HM) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) and systematic reviews on the value of some herbs in the treatment of IPF, there have been no systematic reviews comparing the combined use of complex HM against pirfenidone monotherapy in IPF. This review evaluated the efficacy of parallel administration of HM and pirfenidone in IPF treatment. We conducted a systematic review of RCTs that compared pirfenidone monotherapy against pirfenidone combined administration with HM in IPF. We searched the EMBASE, CENTRAL, PubMed, and CNKI databases for relevant RCTs published before July 2021. Six RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Compared with the control group, a greater recovery or a smaller reduction in forced vital capacity (FVC) and, in general, a valid improvement in the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire was observed in the treatment group. However, it should be noted that the risk of bias of the included RCTs was high or unclear in most categories. In IPF treatment, HM administered with pirfenidone effectively protected pulmonary function and improved the quality of life. However, given the number and quality of the included studies, the evidence was not strong enough to draw definitive conclusions. Well-designed future RCTs are warranted to evaluate the impact of HM on IPF.

Background: Acupoint herbal patching (AHP) has long been used to treat patients with bronchitis in East Asia. This review assessed the efficacy and safety of AHP as a treatment for bronchitis. Methods: We performed a literature search using the 9 databases and included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that used AHP for bronchitis. The methodological quality of each RCT was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook version 5.3, the risk of bias tool, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Results: Seven RCTs were included based on the inclusion criteria. All RCTs were published in China and had a high risk of bias. Three RCTs compared AHP with conventional drug therapy for the treatment of bronchitis. The meta-analysis also showed a significant improvement in treatment effectiveness (relative risk [RR] 1.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.15, 1.42; P < .00001; I² = 0%). Two RCTs investigated AHP combined with conventional drug therapy versus conventional drug therapy. The meta-analysis showed that AHP was significantly more effective than conventional therapy in terms of treatment effective rate (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.03, 1.29; P = .01; I² = 0%). Three RCTs reported adverse events, and none reported severe adverse events. Conclusions: AHP appears to be more effective than conventional drug therapy alone or a placebo. Furthermore, the AHP appears to be a safe treatment option. However, due to the small number of included trials and their poor methodological quality, future studies should include larger sample sizes and well-designed RCTs. Trial registration number: PROSPERO: CRD 42018110380.