RESUMEN
Objectives: Compound Kushen injection (CKI) combined with intraperitoneal chemotherapy (IPC) is widely used in the treatment of malignant ascites (MA). However, evidence about its efficacy and safety remains limited. This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CKI combined with IPC for the treatment of MA. Methods: Protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022304259). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of IPC with CKI for the treatment of patients with MA were searched through 12 electronic databases and 2 clinical trials registration platforms from inception until 20 January 2023. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the quality of the included trials through the risk of bias assessment. We included RCTs that compared IPC single used or CKI combined with IPC for patients with MA schedule to start IPC. The primary outcome was identified as an objective response rate (ORR), while the secondary outcomes were identified as the quality of life (QoL), survival time, immune functions, and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). The Revman5.4 and Stata17 software were used to calculate the risk ratio (RR) at 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes and the mean difference (MD) at 95% CI for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE criteria. Results: A total of 17 RCTs were assessed, which included 1200 patients. The risk of bias assessment of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool revealed that one study was rated high risk and the remaining as unclear or low risk. Meta-analysis revealed that CKI combined with IPC had an advantage in increasing ORR (RR = 1.31, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.43, p < 0.00001) and QoL (RR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.83, p < 0.0001) when compared with IPC alone. Moreover, the combined treatment group showed a lower incidence of myelosuppression (RR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.40-0.64, p < 0.00001), liver dysfunction (RR = 0.33, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.70, p = 0.004), renal dysfunction (RR = 0.39, 95%CI 0.17 to 0.89, p = 0.02), and fever (RR = 0.51, 95%CI 0.35 to 0.75, p = 0.0007) compared to those of the control group. The quality of evidence assessment through GRADE criteria showed that ORR, myelosuppression, and fever were rated moderate, renal dysfunction and liver dysfunction were rated low, and QoL and abdominal pain were rated very low. Conclusion: The efficacy and safety of CKI combined with IPC were superior to that with IPC alone for the treatment of MA, which indicates the potentiality of the treatment. However, more high-quality RCTs are required to validate this conclusion. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022304259], identifier [PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022304259].
RESUMEN
Objectives: Topical Chinese herbal medicine (TCHM) is widely used to prevent radiodermatitis in patients who receive radiation therapy in China. However, evidence regarding its efficacy remains limited. The purpose of the review is to evaluate the effects of TCHM in preventing radiodermatitis. Methods: The protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020220620). Relevant clinical trials were identified (from January 1, 2010, to April 24, 2022) through 11 electronic databases, including PubMed, SpringerLink, Proquest, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, the ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Databases, Wangfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and the Chongqing VIP Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database. The quality of the included trials was assessed through a risk of bias assessment using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2.0). We included RCTs that compared TCHM single used or as adjunctive treatment with routine drugs, conventional therapy, or placebo for cancer patients who are about to start radiation therapy and do not possess any type of dermatitis or skin lesions at that time. Primary outcomes of interest were the incidence of radiodermatitis and the grade of radiodermatitis according to the RTOG (Radiation Therapy Oncology Group). Secondary outcomes included the recovery time of skin and mucosa, the occurrence time of radiodermatitis, the radiation dose, quality of life, and adverse events. Data were summarized using risk ratio (RR) calculations and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for binary outcomes or mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. Certainty of the evidence was assessed according to the GRADE criteria. Results: In this review, 38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. Risk of bias assessment through RoB 2.0 showed that two studies were rated as low risk, two studies were rated as high risk, and the rest were rated as having some concerns. Compared with routine drugs, TCHM may have an advantage in reducing RTOG grading (RR = 0.46, 95%CI 0.35-0.60), decreasing the recovery time of radiodermatitis (MD = -2.35, 95%CI 3.58 to -1.12 days), delaying the occurrence of radiodermatitis (MD = 2.36, 95%CI 1.74-2.98), and improving the quality of life of patients (RR = 1.46, 95%CI 1.03-2.06). Compared with conventional therapy, TCHM may also have an advantage in decreasing the grade of RTOG (RR = 0.28, 95%CI 0.21-0.38). Conclusion: Current low evidence revealed that TCHM may have better efficacy in the prevention of radiodermatitis; however, more high-quality RCTs are still warranted to testify this conclusion. Systematic Review Registration: (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020220620), identifier (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020220620).
