Efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of influenza A (H1N1): A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In March 2009, the first reported case infected with influenza A (H1N1) virus was identified in Mexico. The World Health Organization officially declared the outbreak to be a pandemic on June 11, 2009. The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the treatment of influenza A (H1N1) infection.

METHODS: We electronically and manually searched electronic databases, reference lists, and conference compilations to identify randomized clinical trials that compared the treatment of influenza A (H1N1) using TCM with a control group receiving oseltamivir or antivirus therapy. The Jadad score was used to assess trial quality. Duration of viral shedding, time to defervescence, and effective rate were taken as outcome measurements; additionally, heterogeneity analysis and meta-analysis were performed.

RESULTS: A total of 30 studies were included in our investigation, and these studies together included 3444 cases. Based on the Jadad score, each of these studies were divided as follows: high-quality studies (n = 3), medium-quality studies (n = 2), and low quality studies (n = 25). A meta analysis was performed, which indicated that the time to defervescence between the TCM treatment group and the control group was statistically significant, the duration of viral [Influenza A (H1N1)] shedding in the integrated Chinese and Western medicine subgroups was statistically significant, but it was not statistically significant between the two groups, the effective rate between the two groups was not statistically significant. A total of 18 studies described adverse drug reactions.

CONCLUSION: The results of our study indicated that the mean time to defervescence in the TCM treatment group was less than noted in the control group, and that the duration of viral [Influenza A (H1N1)] shedding in the integrated Chinese and Western medicine subgroups was less than that noted in the control group. However, the available evidence does not consider the fact that the difference in duration of viral shedding and effective rate between the two groups was statistically similar. No obvious adverse events were reported in the included studies.