Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus no intervention or placebo for chronic hepatitis B

Background Hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection, a liver disease caused by hepatitis B virus, may lead to serious complications such as cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. People with HBV infection may have co- infections including HIV and other hepatitis viruses (hepatitis C or D), and co- infection may increase the risk of all- cause mortality. Chronic HBV infection increases morbidity and psychological stress and is an economic burden on people with chronic hepatitis B and their families. Radix Sophorae flavescentis, an herbal medicine, is administered most often in combination with other drugs or herbs. It is believed that it decreases discomfort and prevents replication of the virus in people with chronic hepatitis B. However, the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis for patient- centred outcomes are not known, and its wide usage has never been established with rigorous review methodology. Objectives To assess the benefits and harms of Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus placebo or no intervention in people with chronic hepatitis B. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Hepato- Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, ScienceCitation Index Expanded, Conference ProceedingsCitation Index - Science, ChinaNationalKnowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chongqing VIP (CQVIP), Wanfang Data, and SinoMed. We also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www. who. int/ ictrp), ClinicalTrials. gov (www. clinicaltrials. gov/), and the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry for ongoing or unpublished trials. We conducted the last search in December 2018. Selection criteria We included randomised clinical trials, irrespective of publication status, language, or blinding, comparing Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus no intervention or placebo in people with chronic hepatitis B. We excluded polyherbal blends containing Radix Sophorae flavescentis. We allowed co-interventions when the co-interventions were administered equally to all intervention groups. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Review authors in pairs retrieved data from individual published reports and after correspondencewith investigators. Our primary outcomeswere all-causemortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Our secondary outcomes were hepatitis B-related mortality, hepatitis B-related morbidity, and adverse events considered ' not to be serious'. We presented meta-analysed results as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using domains with pre-defined definitions. We conducted Trial Sequential Analyses to control the risk of random errors. We used GRADE methodology to evaluate our certainty in the evidence (i. e. " the extent of our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct or are adequate to support a particular decision or recommendation"). Main results We included 35 randomised clinical trials with 3556 participants. One trial compared Radix Sophorae flavescentis with placebo; the remaining 34 trials compared effects of Radix Sophorae flavescentis in addition to a co-intervention versus the same co-intervention. The included trials assessed heterogenous forms and ways of administering Radix Sophorae flavescentis (e. g. oral capsules, oral tablets, intravenous infusion, intramuscular injection, acupoint (a specifically chosen site of acupuncture) injection) with treatment duration of 1 to 24 months. Two of the trials included children up to 14 years old. Participants in two trials had cirrhosis in addition to chronic hepatitis B. All trials were assessed at high risk of bias, and certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Only one of the 35 trials assessed mortality; no deaths occurred. Ten trials assessed serious adverse events; no serious adverse events occurred. None of the trials reported health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, or morbidity. Adverse events considered ' not to be serious' was an outcome in 19 trials; nine of these trials had zero events in both groups. Radix Sophorae flavescentis versus placebo or no intervention showed no difference in effects on adverse events considered ' not to be serious' (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.59; I (2) = 49%; 10 trials, 1050 participants). Radix Sophorae flavescentis showed a reduction in the proportion of participants with detectable HBV-DNA (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.68; I (2) = 56%; 29 trials, 2914 participants) and in the proportion of participants with detectable HBeAg (hepatitis B e-antigen) (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.76; I (2) = 19%; 20 trials, 2129 participants). Seven of the 35 randomised clinical trials received academic funding from government or hospital. Four trials received no funding. The remaining 24 trials provided no information on funding. Additionally, 432 trials lacked the methodological information needed to ensure inclusion of these trials in our review. Authors ' conclusions The included trials lacked data on health-related quality of life, hepatitis B-related mortality, and hepatitis B-related morbidity. The effects of Radix Sophorae flavescentis on all-cause mortality and on the proportion of participants with serious adverse events and adverse events considered ' not to be serious' remain unclear. We advise caution in interpreting results showing that Radix Sophorae flavescentis reduced the proportion of people with detectable HBV-DNA and detectable HBeAg because the trials reporting on these outcomes are at high risk of bias and both outcomes are non-validated surrogate outcomes. We were unable to obtain information on the design and conduct of a large number of trials; therefore, we were deterred from including them in our review. Undisclosed funding may influence trial results and may lead to poor trial design. Given the wide usage of Radix Sophorae flavescentis, we need large, unbiased, high-quality placebo-controlled randomised trials in which patient-centred outcomes are assessed.