Evidence Hub

The prediction of lymphocyte count and neutrophil count on the efficacy of Xuebijing adjuvant treatment for severe community-acquired pneumonia: A post hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Cuiping Zhang, Hong He, Xiaoyan Chen, Tianchang Wei, Chen Yang, J. Bi, Xin-Jun Tang, Jie Liu et al.

Phytomedicine, 2022

675 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Adjuvant Xuebijing therapy exhibited a protective effect on severe community-acquired pneumonia (SCAP) in previous studies. Blood inflammatory biomarkers related to the disease subtype and severity of SCAP might be associated with the effects of Xuebijing on clinical outcomes of SCAP.

PURPOSE

To investigate whether neutrophils or lymphocytes are a useful biomarker of the therapeutic effect of Xuebijing on mortality and inflammation damage index.

STUDY DESIGN

A post hoc analysis of a randomized, placebo-controlled and double-blinded clinical trial of Xuebijing in patients with SCAP (Clinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR-TRC-13003534).

METHODS

We compared 28-day mortality (primary outcome) and four clinical scores (secondary outcome), including pneumonia severity index (PSI) score, sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score, according to the baseline strata of neutrophil count and lymphocyte count.

RESULTS

A total of 675 patients were included in the analyses, of which 334 received Xuebijing and 341 received the placebo. Xuebijing was more effective in SCAP patients with higher lymphocyte counts and lower neutrophil counts. In the lymphocyte-dominated inflammation (LDI) subgroup, defined as neutrophil count <13 × 109 cells/l and lymphocyte count ≥0.65 × 109 cells/l, Xuebijing reduced 28-day mortality by 15% while mortality of the…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 675 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