Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Cordyceps sinensis preparations in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
METHODS Computerized search was conducted in PubMed, VIP, CNKI, CMB and Wanfang databases from January 1, 2015 to October 1, 2025. Randomized controlled trials on the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with Cordyceps sinensis preparations were collected. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data and evaluated the quality of the studies according to the Cochrane systematic review method. The evaluators cross-checked the final results, and then a network meta-analysis was conducted using Stata MP 18.0 software.
RESULTS A total of 35 clinical randomized controlled trials were included, involving 3710 cases, with 1857 cases in the experimental group and 1853 cases in the control group. The results of the network meta-analysis showed that: ①In terms of improving clinical efficacy, Bailing tablets > Jinshuibao capsules >Bailing capsules; ②In terms of improving forced expiratory volume in the first second(FEV1), Bailing capsules > Jinshuibao capsules; ③In terms of improving the percentage of forced expiratory volume in the first second(FEV1%) of the predicted value, Jinshuibao capsules > Baling capsules > Bailing tablets; ④In terms of improving forced vital capacity(FVC), Bailing tablets > Jinshuibao capsules > Bailing capsules; ⑤In terms of improving FEV1/FVC, Bailing capsules > Bailing tablets > Jinshuibao capsules; ⑥In terms of safety, 7 articles reported adverse reactions, mainly involving the digestive system, nervous system, skin system, urinary system, endocrine system, and cardiovascular system, and no serious adverse reactions occurred.
CONCLUSION The combination of Cordyceps sinensis preparations and conventional western medicine in the treatment of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease can improve clinical efficacy and lung function indicators such as FEV1, FEV1%, FVC and FEV1/FVC. However, due to the limitations of the included studies, there is a lack of direct comparisons between different intervention measures. Therefore, more high-quality, multi-center, large-sample clinical randomized controlled studies are still needed to more objectively, comprehensively and accurately evaluate their efficacy.