Abstract
Context
Traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) have emerged as potential adjuvant therapies to treat non-small cell lung cancer. More direct comparative studies must be conducted among various oral TCMs.
Objective
This network meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy and safety of seven oral TCMs combined with chemotherapy in treating NSCLC.
Methods
The analysis included Zilongjin, Banmao, Hongdoushan, Huachansu, Kanglaite, Xihuang, and Pingxiao TCMs. Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from the following databases: China National Infrastructure, Wanfang, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to April 2023. Two researchers independently extracted data.
Results
Sixty-eight RCTs (5,099 patients) were included. Compared to chemotherapy, Banmao capsules [odds ratio (OR) = 2.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.96–3.69)] and Huachansu tablets [OR = 2.35, 95%CI (1.81, 3.05)] ranked in the top two in terms of increasing disease control rate. The two main TCMs to improve the objective response rate were Banmao capsules [OR = 3.49, 95%CI (2.17, 5.60)] and Zilongjin tablets [OR = 2.62, 95%CI (1.92, 3.57)]. Zilongjin tablets [OR = 3.47, 95%CI (2.14, 5.63)] and Huachansu tablets [OR = 3.30, 95%CI (1.65, 6.60)] were ranked as the top two in improving Karnofsky performance status. Hongdoushan capsules (SUCRA = 18.8%) and Banmao capsules (SUCRA = 19.8%) were the top two in reducing gastrointestinal toxicity. Zilongjin tablets (SUCRA = 18.9%) and Banmao capsules (SUCRA = 26.6%) were the top two to reduce liver and kidney toxicity. Hongdoushan capsules (SUCRA = 15.7%) and Huachansu tablets (SUCRA = 16.8%) ranked the top two in reducing thrombocytopenia. Banmao capsules (SUCRA = 14.3%) and Zilongjin tablets (SUCRA = 26.3%) were the top two decreasing leukopenia.
Conclusions
Combining oral TCMs with platinum-based chemotherapy has shown superior efficacy compared to platinum-based chemotherapy alone in treating NSCLC.
Disclosure statement
Shusen Sun is an Associate Editor of this journal but was not involved in the peer review process, in line with journal protocol, COPE guidelines and current best practice. No other authors reported a conflict of interest.