{"title":"Efficacy and safety of Xiaoyao San in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Qianqian Wang, Jian Zhou, Guanwen Gong","doi":"10.3389/fphar.2025.1496774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Xiaoyao San (XYS) has been increasingly used in China for treating chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but its efficacy and safety remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of XYS compared to standard biomedical treatments (SBT) in CFS patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of English and Chinese databases was conducted up to December 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing XYS or XYS + SBT to SBT alone. Primary outcomes were effective rate (ER) and fatigue scale-14 (FS-14). Secondary outcomes included self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), and adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4, and evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Six studies involving 623 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that XYS-based interventions significantly improved ER (RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.18-1.37, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%) and FS-14 (MD = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.49-2.06, I<sup>2</sup> = 54%). Subgroup analyses confirmed consistent efficacy for both XYS vs. SBT and XYS + SBT vs. SBT. Anxiety and depression improved significantly in the XYS + SBT group, with SAS (MD = 5.16, 95% CI: 3.84-6.48, I<sup>2</sup> = 24%) and SDS (MD = 4.62, 95% CI: 3.15-6.09, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). Additionally, the risk of AEs was significantly reduced in the XYS + SBT group compared to SBT alone (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.32-0.72, I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). However, the quality of evidence was rated \"low\" due to risk of bias and potential publication bias among the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>XYS, whether alone or with SBT, is effective and safe for improving ER, fatigue, anxiety, and depression in CFS patients. However, due to the low quality of the evidence, results should be interpreted cautiously. High-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are needed to provide stronger evidence for the clinical use of XYS in managing CFS.</p><p><strong>Systematic review registration: </strong>https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=493084, identifier CRD42023493084.</p>","PeriodicalId":12491,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","volume":"16 ","pages":"1496774"},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11839657/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2025.1496774","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Xiaoyao San (XYS) has been increasingly used in China for treating chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but its efficacy and safety remain unclear.
Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of XYS compared to standard biomedical treatments (SBT) in CFS patients.
Methods: A comprehensive search of English and Chinese databases was conducted up to December 2024. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing XYS or XYS + SBT to SBT alone. Primary outcomes were effective rate (ER) and fatigue scale-14 (FS-14). Secondary outcomes included self-rating anxiety scale (SAS), self-rating depression scale (SDS), and adverse events (AEs). Data were analyzed using Review Manager 5.4, and evidence quality was assessed using the GRADE approach.
Results: Six studies involving 623 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that XYS-based interventions significantly improved ER (RR = 1.27, 95% CI: 1.18-1.37, I2 = 0%) and FS-14 (MD = 1.77, 95% CI: 1.49-2.06, I2 = 54%). Subgroup analyses confirmed consistent efficacy for both XYS vs. SBT and XYS + SBT vs. SBT. Anxiety and depression improved significantly in the XYS + SBT group, with SAS (MD = 5.16, 95% CI: 3.84-6.48, I2 = 24%) and SDS (MD = 4.62, 95% CI: 3.15-6.09, I2 = 0%). Additionally, the risk of AEs was significantly reduced in the XYS + SBT group compared to SBT alone (RR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.32-0.72, I2 = 0%). However, the quality of evidence was rated "low" due to risk of bias and potential publication bias among the studies.
Conclusion: XYS, whether alone or with SBT, is effective and safe for improving ER, fatigue, anxiety, and depression in CFS patients. However, due to the low quality of the evidence, results should be interpreted cautiously. High-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up are needed to provide stronger evidence for the clinical use of XYS in managing CFS.
期刊介绍：
Frontiers in Pharmacology is a leading journal in its field, publishing rigorously peer-reviewed research across disciplines, including basic and clinical pharmacology, medicinal chemistry, pharmacy and toxicology. Field Chief Editor Heike Wulff at UC Davis is supported by an outstanding Editorial Board of international researchers. This multidisciplinary open-access journal is at the forefront of disseminating and communicating scientific knowledge and impactful discoveries to researchers, academics, clinicians and the public worldwide.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
