Evidence Hub

Efficacy and mechanisms of andrographolide derivative in acute exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a meta-analysis, network pharmacology, molecular docking, and in vitro validation study

Jiaxiang Li, Xiaowen Wu, Yuning Shen, Jiayang Yao, Zhiyue Yu, Ming Gao, Weihao Gao, Limei Geng

Frontiers in Pharmacology, 2026

2,668 participants

Abstract

Background Acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (AECOPD) contributes substantially to morbidity and mortality. Andrographolide derivative injections (e.g., Xiyanping, Yanhuning, Chuanhuning, Lianbizhi) are widely used adjunctive treatments in China. Their clinical efficacy remains unclear, and we explored the potential mechanisms of the parent compound andrographolide in this study. Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis of 32 randomized controlled trials (n = 2,668) comparing andrographolide derivatives plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone in patients with AECOPD was conducted. Pulmonary function (FEV 1 %, FEV 1 , FVC), arterial oxygen tension (PaO 2 ), inflammatory markers (CRP, WBC, NEUT%, PCT), and overall clinical response were evaluated. Network pharmacology, molecular docking, and in vitro experiments using LPS-stimulated BEAS-2B cells were performed to explore underlying mechanisms. Results Adjunctive andrographolide derivatives significantly improved overall clinical response rate [RR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.17–1.26, P < 0.00001], FEV 1 % [MD = 6.48, 95% CI 3.52–9.45], FEV 1 [MD = 0.30 L, 95% CI 0.20–0.40], FVC [MD = 0.28 L, 95% CI 0.10–0.46], and PaO 2 [MD = 6.56 mmHg, 95% CI 4.68–8.45]. Inflammatory markers were also reduced: CRP [MD = −4.72 mg/L, 95% CI -6.83 to –2.61], WBC [MD = −1.30 ×10 9 /L, 95% CI −1.79 to −0.80], NEUT% [MD = −4.36 percentage points, 95% CI -6.18 to −2.54], PCT [MD = −0.17 ng/mL, 95% CI -0.23 to…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in cell cultures (in vitro) and computer models (in silico), not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health. Reported size: 2,668 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