Evidence Hub

Efficacy and safety of Tanreqing Injection combined with conventional antimicrobial therapy in the treatment of multidrug-resistant bacterial pneumonia: a meta-analysis

Bofei Shu, Ting-Ting Qiu, Ke-Ke Li, Xiaolin Wang, Bangjiang Fang

Journal of Infection in Developing Countries, 2026

1,616 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacterial pneumonia is a growing public health concern with limited treatment options and high mortality rates. Tanreqing injection, a traditional Chinese medicine with anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, and immunomodulatory properties, has shown potential as an adjunctive therapy, but its efficacy and safety remain unclear.

METHODS

A systematic search of six English and Chinese databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published before July 2025 evaluating Tanreqing injection for MDR pneumonia. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Primary outcomes included clinical effectiveness and 28-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included bacterial clearance, inflammatory markers (WBC, CRP, PCT), healthcare utilization (duration of antibiotic use, mechanical ventilation, hospital stay), and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool.

RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs involving 1,616 patients were included. All studies were conducted in China. Tanreqing combined with standard therapy significantly improved clinical effectiveness (RR = 1.21) and bacterial clearance (RR = 1.42), and reduced CRP, WBC, PCT, antibiotic duration (MD = -3.55 days), ventilation time (MD = -1.57 days), and hospital stay (MD = -4.98 days). A trend toward lower 28-day mortality was observed (RR = 0.56, p = 0.15). No serious adverse events were reported. Publication bias was not significant (Harbord test, p = 0.639).…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,616 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free