BR Biomedical Reports 2049-9434 2049-9442 D.A. Spandidos 10.3892/br.2016.624 BR-0-0-624 Articles Adjunctive therapy of Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis WENGHONG 1 * HUANGJING-YU 1 * MENGXIANG-YU 1 LISHENG 1 ZHANGGU-QIN 2 Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, P.R. China Department of Respiratory Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, P.R. China Correspondence to: Dr Hong Weng, Center for Evidence-Based and Translational Medicine, Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, 169 Donghu Road, Wuhan, Hubei 430071, P.R. China, E-mail: wengh92@163.com

Contributed equally

 05 2016 04 03 2016 4 5 595 600 15122015 16022016 Copyright © 2016, Spandidos Publications 2016

A number of studies have suggested that the Mycobacterium vaccae (MV) vaccine as an adjunctive therapy has a positive effect in the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). However, the result is inconclusive. The aim of the present study was to systematically evaluate the effect and safety of MV as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of MDR-TB. A computerized search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CBM, CNKI and VIP until October 2014 was conducted to collect the relevant studies. The main outcome measures were the sputum smear positive-turned-negative rate, the absorption rate of TB foci and the closure situation of the TB cavity. Two investigators identified the eligible studies and extracted data independently. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated and pooled using the fixed effects model. A total of 25 studies involving 2,281 patients with MDR-TB were included. The pooled OR was 3.84 (95% CI, 3.84–4.73) for the sputum smear positive-turned-negative, 4.08 (95% CI, 3.08–5.45) for the absorption rate of TB foci, and 3.42 (95% CI, 2.68–4.37) for the closure situation of TB cavity. Therefore, MV has a significant effect as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of MDR-TB. However, larger scale multicenter randomized controlled trials are required to confirm this evidence for limited latent bias at present.

 multidrug-resistant tuberculosis Mycobacterium vaccae randomized controlled trial systematic review meta-analysis Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) is a public health and social problem worldwide, and remains the main infectious disease with a serious effect on health in the current century. Since the 1960s, TB chemotherapy has replaced the previous negative health nutrition therapy and has become recognized worldwide as the main method for control of TB. However, TB deteriorated as a global trend from the middle of the 1980s, and currently, the majority of the TB epidemic is extremely low in developed countries. The TB epidemic situation is noticeably improving in numerous developing countries. In numerous countries and regions the occurrence of TB is associated with the human immunodeficiency virus infection, multiple drug-resistant Mycobacterium TB (MTB) infection, increased poverty, population growth and migration, and other objective factors. By contrast, the complexity of the TB epidemic has increased due to a lack of understanding of the vigilance and control of TB. The management of TB was also believed to be solved, and therefore, controlling TB and the input and control of other subjective factors was reduced. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), an estimate in 2008 indicates that the global annual incidence of drug-resistant TB is ~9.2 million, while the actual multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) may approach >500,000. The number of patients in China with MDR-TB ranks second worldwide (1). MDR-TB treatment for TB prevention and control is an extremely difficult problem that is often clinically treated on the basis of anti-TB chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy.

Mycobacterium vaccae (MV) vaccine is an immunization of heat-killed MV that enhanced anti-TB mycobacterial infections in patients with cellular immune function, and combined with chemotherapy can enhance the efficacy of chemotherapy for the adjunctive treatment of TB. In 2011, Yang et al (2) performed a meta-analysis to evaluate the MV as an adjunctive therapy to anti-TB chemotherapy in never-treated TB patients. Certain studies have shown that MV can protect against MDR-TB (3–5). However, not all the studies reached the same or similar association, and no summary of the evidence of the effectiveness of MV as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of MDR-TB exists. The present study conducted a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the eligible studies on the adjunctive therapy of MV in the treatment of MDR-TB to indicate the critical effect of MV, further research and application.

 Materials and methods <sec> <title>Literature search

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement (6). A computerized search was conducted in the English databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CBM, CNKI and VIP until October 2014 for original studies using the following keywords: (‘Mycobacterium vaccae’ OR ‘M. vaccae’ OR MV) AND (‘multidrug tuberculosis’ OR MDR-TB OR ‘refractory tuberculosis’). The performance was limited to human studies and manual retrieval was applied to the literature references or bibliographies of all the relevant studies.

 Study selection

All the initial studies complied with the following criteria: i) Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or clinical controlled trials with available data to investigating MV as an adjunctive therapy used as intervention versus general chemotherapy (without MV); ii) the general chemotherapy regimens in the MV group was the same as the control group (without MV); and iii) subjects without adverse disease, such as severe autoimmune disease, or pregnant women.

 Data extraction

Two investigators (HW and SL) independently conducted the data extraction and quality assessment. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion. The first author, year of publication and the detailed information of PICOS (patient, intervention, comparison and study design) were recorded.

 Quality assessment

The methodological quality of each study was evaluated using the Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing the risk of bias. The following four items were mainly assessed: Adequate sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding and incomplete outcome data addressed.

 Statistical analysis

All the data were pooled using Stata 12.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX, USA). For the binary outcomes, the odds ratio (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated; and for the continuous outcomes, the standard mean differences (SMDs) and their 95% CIs were calculated. The heterogeneity test was performed for the included studies and P<0.1 was considered to indicate a statistical significant difference, and subsequently a quantitative measure of heterogeneity across studies was conducted using the I2 statistic. Studies with an I2 of 25–50% were considered low heterogeneity, 50–70% were considered moderate heterogeneity and >75% were considered high heterogeneity (7). The fixed effects model was applied to pool the effects for studies or subgroups without heterogeneity. Sensitivity analysis was carried out by removing studies, and using fixed and random effect models. Subgroup analysis was conducted to investigate the potential source of between-study heterogeneity. A two-side P<0.05 in the Z-test was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.

 Results <sec> <title>Description of studies and quality assessment

The initial search yielded 178 relevant studies, of which 150 were excluded for various reasons depending on the abstracts, and finally 25 studies (8–32) were included. These 25 studies involved 2,281 Chinese patients. The characteristics of the eligible studies are shown in Table I. The course of treatment ranged from 6 to 24 months. The quality assessment of the eligible studies is shown in Table II.

 Meta-analysis of outcome measures

In total, 23 studies (8–29,32) reported the sputum smear positive-turned-negative rate (Table III). There was no heterogeneity between these studies (I2=0.0%, P-value for heterogeneity=0.493). Subsequently, the fixed effects model was performed to pool the results. The aggregated result of these studies suggested that MV as an adjunctive therapy is associated with a significantly increased sputum smear positive-turned-negative (OR=3.84; 95% CI, 3.11–4.73). Following this, sensitivity analysis was carried out by changing the statistical model (OR=3.73; 95% CI, 3.01–4.61; I2=0.0%; P-value for heterogeneity=0.493).

Fifteen studies (8–13,17–22,24,26,27) reported the absorption rate of TB foci (Table III). There was no heterogeneity between these studies (I2=35.7%, P-value for heterogeneity=0.084). Following this, the fixed effects model was applied to pool the results. The pooled result suggested that MV as an adjunctive therapy is associated with a significantly increased absorption rate of the TB foci (OR=4.08; 95% CI, 3.06–5.45). Subsequently, sensitivity analysis was carried out by changing the statistical model (OR=4.08; 95% CI, 2.75–6.05; I2=35.7%; P-value for heterogeneity=0.084).

Eighteen studies (9–23,25,26,28) reported the closure situation of the TB cavity (Table III). There was no heterogeneity between these studies (I2=0.0%, P-value for heterogeneity=0.794). Subsequently, the fixed effects model was performed to pool the results. The summarized results of these studies suggest that MV as an adjunctive therapy is associated with a significant increase in the closure situation of the TB cavity (OR=3.42; 95% CI, 2.68–4.37). Following this, sensitivity analysis was carried out by changing the statistical model (OR=3.40; 95% CI, 2.65–4.36; I2=0.0%; P-value for heterogeneity=0.794).

Four studies (26,27,30,31) reported the curative effects of the adjunctive therapy of MV. The aggregated results of these studies suggest that MV as an adjunctive therapy is associated with a significant increase in the curative effects (OR=2.44; 95% CI, 1.29–4.60; I2=0.0%; P-value for heterogeneity=0.979) with the fixed effects model.

Four studies (10,13,17,21) reported the improvement of symptoms of the adjunctive therapy of MV. The aggregated results of these studies suggest that MV as an adjunctive therapy is associated with a significant increase in the improvement of symptoms (OR=6.15; 95% CI, 3.32–11.42; I2=15.0%; P-value for heterogeneity=0.317) with the fixed effects model.

Four studies (11,13,18,22) reported the T-lymphocyte subsets counts including cluster of differentiation 3+(CD3+), CD4+, CD8+ and CD4+/CD8+. The pooled result of these studies suggested that MV as an adjunctive therapy is associated with a significant increase in CD4+ counts (SMD=0.98; 95% CI, 0.04–1.93; I2=94.6%; P-value for heterogeneity <0.001) and specific value of CD4+/CD8+ (SMD=0.76; 95% CI, 0.06–1.45; I2=90.6; P-value for heterogeneity <0.001) with the random effects model, and MV as an adjunctive therapy had no statistical significance for increasing CD3+ counts (SMD=0.31; 95% CI, −0.05–0.68; I2=68.2%, P-value for heterogeneity=0.024) and CD8+ counts (SMD=−1.14; 95% CI, −2.81–0.53; I2=98.0%; P-value for heterogeneity <0.001).

The adverse effects of MV mainly include induration at the vaccine sites (8–9,13,16,17,19–22,24,26), fever (8,13,16,19,21,22) and local swelling (9,12,17,20,21,26). For the purified protein derivative test, only 1 study (15) reported that no significance occurred for the changes of the scleroma diameter between the MV and control groups.

 Discussion

The main aim of the present study, which included 25 eligible studies involving 2,281 subjects, was to critically evaluate the effects of MV as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of MDR-TB patients. Based on the available studies, the meta-analysis showed that MV is an effective adjuvant when combined with general chemotherapy for treating MDR-TB. MV can improve the sputum smear positive-turned-negative, the absorption of TB foci and the closure situation of the TB cavity for some of the poor quality RCTs reported. In addition, MV as an adjunctive therapy has fewer adverse effects compared to the general anti-TB drugs. The clinical effects of MV have been confirmed presently using the previous studies.

Particularly in low-income countries and developing nations, MDR-TB is spreading with a series of negative consequences. MDR-TB had been reported in Eastern Europe, Western Europe and Central Asia (33,34). Control of TB by chemotherapy is mainly measured according to ‘the long-term, combined, in moderation, appropriate and whole course’, but resistance is frequently due to unreasonable chemotherapy regimens, poorer compliance and worse immune function of patients, resulting in TB bacterium that are resistant of MDR, and subsequently, searching for the correct treatment is the focus of clinical physicians and pharmacists. The T-cell [T-helper cells (Th cells)] immunity of patient immune function is closely associated with the onset and outcomes of TB disease; Th1 cells decrease in peripheral blood and increase in lesions, and furthermore, they are associated with the course of dynamic changes. Therefore, according to the immunological characteristics of TB, the study protocol of immune therapy application combined with chemotherapy has been more frequently applied in anti-TB treatment in clinical practice. In an early study by Stanford et al (35), MV as immune agents improved the pathological changes around the immune cell activity, reduced tissue necrosis, weight gain, shortened the chemotherapy treatment, and reduced the case fatality rate.

MV, a type of immune enhancer, mainly affects the immune response to adjust the human immune function and achieve therapeutic purposes. MV can remove and restrain MTB by activating the Th1 cytokine-mediated immune response, improving Th1/Th2, and activating the macrophage phagocytosis of MTB. From the perspective of pharmacoeconomics, although the treatment cost of MV combined with chemical therapy increased for MDR-TB, its curative effect significantly improved and the incremental cost was reduced (12). It is the only recommended immunization agents by the WHO in the Tuberculosis Strategic Development Plan of the 1990s (36).

The result of the present meta-analysis with little heterogeneity was in accordance with the study reporting that immunotherapy with MV offers hope for the treatment of MDR-TB pulmonary TB in Estonia, Iran, Kuwait, New Zealand, Romania, Vietnam and the United Kingdom (37). There are certain limitations that originated from the limited studies present in this meta-analysis, which should be taken into consideration. Firstly, these studies (8–32) were not targeted globally (all studies were Chinese populations) and the course of treatment varied from 6 to 24 months, and the chemotherapy regimens in the control group were different forms in each trials. Secondly, the studies were all carried out in China and their qualities had a generally high risk of bias; all did not address the allocation concealment, which would magnify >40% effects of the results (38–40). Only 2 studies (18,31) reported the method of adequate sequence generation, including stratified random and using a random numbers table. Thirdly, the sample size of the included studies was relatively small. On the basis of the course of treatment in the subgroup analysis, a notable finding was that the effects of the sputum smear positive-turned-negative, the absorption of TB foci and the closure situation of TB cavity were reduced as the course of treatment increased. This was possibly due to the reducing effect of the general chemotherapy as the extension of treatment. Furthermore, the treatment of MDR-TB should always be prioritized above chemotherapy, and immunotherapy is a type of auxiliary treatment. Therefore, multi-central large RCTs are required to investigate the safety of MV as an adjunctive therapy in MDR-TB treatment in the future.

In conclusion, the present study demonstrates that MV has a significant effect and safety as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of MDR-TB. Further studies are required to validate this conclusion.

 References DyeCFloydKUplekarMGlobal tuberculosis control: Surveillance planning financingWHO report 2008World Health OrganizationGeneva3002008 YangXYChenQFLiYPWuSMMycobacterium vaccae as adjuvant therapy to anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy in never-treated tuberculosis patients: A meta-analysisPLoS One6e23826201110.1371/journal.pone.002382621909406 Abou-ZeidCGaresMPInwaldJJanssenRZhangYYoungDBHetzelCLambJRBaldwinSLOrmeIMInduction of a type 1 immune response to a recombinant antigen from Mycobacterium tuberculosis expressed in Mycobacterium vaccaeInfect Immun651856186219979125572 Hernandez-PandoRPavönLArriagaKOrozcoHMadrid-MarinaVRookGPathogenesis of tuberculosis in mice exposed to low and high doses of an environmental mycobacterial saprophyte before infectionInfect Immun653317332719979234793 SkinnerMAYuanSPrestidgeRChukDWatsonJDTanPLImmunization with heat-killed Mycobacterium vaccae stimulates CD8+ cytotoxic T cells specific for macrophages infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosisInfect Immun654525453019979353029 LiberatiAAltmanDGTetzlaffJMulrowCGøtzschePCIoannidisJPClarkeMDevereauxPJKleijnenJMoherDThe PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: Explanation and elaborationBMJ339b2700200910.1136/bmj.b270019622552 HigginsJPThompsonSGDeeksJJAltmanDGMeasuring inconsistency in meta-analysesBMJ327557560200310.1136/bmj.327.7414.55712958120 LuoYLuSGuoSImmunotherapeutic effect of Mycobacterium vaccae on multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosisZhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi2385882000(In Chinese)11778496 SongXDRenYWZhuHJiQXuYThe effect of Mycobacterium vaccae on multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis of 36 casesZhongguo Zong He Lin Chuang18482002(In Chinese) WuCYuGCChengCXEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae on multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis of 43 casesZhongguo She Qu Yi Shi: Yi Xue Zhuan Ye615162004(In Chinese) ZhengXMLiSHXingBCShort-term effect of treatment protocol utilizing levofloxacin, pasiniazide and M. Vaccae on multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosisDi Yi Jun Yi Da Xue Xue Bao245745782004(In Chinese)15151838 ChenSQLiuJYWengLZPharmacoeconomics evaluation for the treatment of Mycobacterium vaccae on multidrug-tuberculosisFu Jian Yi Yao Za Zhi271291312005(In Chinese) YaoHBShangHZGuoLWangYLFengJMMaJMThe observation of the effect of the treatment of multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosis with M VaccaeZhongguo Fang Lao Za Zhi273893922005(In Chinese) LiuYHEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae as an adjunctive therapy on multidrug resistant tuberculosisZhongguo Ji Ceng Yi Yao134924932006(In Chinese) WangJYLinDWEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae on multidrug resistant tuberculosisHua Xia Yi Xue194434452006(In Chinese) LanKEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae as an adjunctive therapy on multidrug resistant pulmonary tuberculosisNei Ke247482007(In Chinese) ZhaoSXEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine in treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosisLin Chuang Fei Ke Za Zhi139279282008(In Chinese) ChuNHLuoYAZhuLZFuYYeZXiaoHWangWYuanSZhangXLuSA controlled clinical study of long course chemotherapy regimens combined with immunopotentiator in the treatment of multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosisZhongguo Fang Lao Za Zhi3110142009(In Chinese) GuXYEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae as an adjunctive therapy on 70 multidrug resistant tuberculosis casesLin Chuang Fei Ke Za Zhi14167716782009(In Chinese) HongYLinXHEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine plus anti-tuberculosis drugs on multi-resistant tuberculosisZhongguo Re Dai Yi Xue98508512009(In Chinese) WangYLStudy of microcalory united with chemotherapeutics on tuberculosis of more drugs fastXian Dai Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi18236223632009(In Chinese) XiXEZhangHQZhangLGFrozen-dried M. Vaccae Vavvine for therapy combined with general chemotherapy for multi-drug resistance pulmonary tuberculosisXin Xiang Yi Xue Yuan Xue Bao263553572009(In Chinese) LiuXDMV immune treatment of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis 32 cases of clinical curative effect observationGan Nan Yi Xue Yuan Xue Bao304122010(In Chinese) MeiYZYangLMEffects of Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine on multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosisZhongguo Re Dai Yi Xue106936942010(In Chinese) ZhangJDMV with the chemotherapy drug therapy retreatment on case of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis curative effect observationLin Chuang Fei Ke Za Zhi15148914902010(In Chinese) ShengGLClinical analysis of Vaccae combined anti-tuberculosis drugs in treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosisYi Yao Lun Tan Za Zhi3237382011(In Chinese) WangLJinZDEffect of Mycobacterium vaccae vaccine on multi-drug resistant pulmonary tuberculosisZhongguo She Qu Yi Shi: Yi Xue Zhuan Ye13522011(In Chinese) YangSYClinical analysis of Vaccae combined anti-tuberculosis drugs in treatment of 60 cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosisZhongguo Yi Yao Zhi Nan91051062011(In Chinese) ZhouYClinical observation of mycobacterium bovis combination with chemotherapy on multidrug-resistant mycobacteriumChong Qin Yi Xue403413422011(In Chinese) ChenYJChemical joint MV clinical research for the treatment of senile multi-drug resistant tuberculosisZhong Wai Yi Xue Yan Jiu10442012(In Chinese) YinLSZhuMZhouMClinical observation on buqin tablet combined with Western medicine for 17 cases of multidrug-resistant tuberculosisZhong Yi Za Zhi536696722012(In Chinese) ZhangXLHuangDEffects of cellular immunity improvement on chemotherapy efficacy and prognosis of patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosisShi Yong Yi Xue Za Zhi29196419662013(In Chinese) SkrahinaAHurevichHZalutskayaASahalchykEAstraukoAvan GemertWHoffnerSRusovichVZignolMAlarming levels of drug-resistant tuberculosis in Belarus: Results of a survey in MinskEur Respir J3914251431201210.1183/09031936.0014541122005924 ZignolMvan GemertWFalzonDSismanidisCGlaziouPFloydKRaviglioneMSurveillance of anti-tuberculosis drug resistance in the world: An updated analysis, 2007–2010Bull World Health Organ90111119D201210.2471/BLT.11.09258522423162 StanfordJLBahrGMRookGAShaabanMAChughTDGabrielMal-ShimaliBSiddiquiZGhardaniFShahinAImmunotherapy with Mycobacterium vaccae as an adjunct to chemotherapy in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosisTubercle718793199010.1016/0041-3879(90)90002-P2219469 World Health Organization (WHO): Tuberculosis research and development: Report of a WHO meetingWHO, Geneva1991 StanfordJLStanfordCAGrangeJMLanNNEtemadiADoes immunotherapy with heat-killed Mycobacterium vaccae offer hope for the treatment of multi-drug-resistant pulmonary tuberculosis?Respir Med95444447200110.1053/rmed.2001.106511421500 SchulzKFChalmersIHayesRJAltmanDGEmpirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJAMA273408412199510.1001/jama.273.5.4087823387 MoherDPhamBJonesACookDJJadadARMoherMTugwellPKlassenTPDoes quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Lancet352609613199810.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X9746022 JüniPAltmanDGEggerMSystematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ3234246200110.1136/bmj.323.7303.4211440947

Characteristics of the studies included in the meta-analysis.

First author, year Sample size, n (m/f) COT, months Interventions Comparison Outcomes (Refs.)
Luo, 2000 28/28   6 Chemotherapy regimens + 0.1 mg MV Km, Am, P, Cm, Ofx, Lfx and Pto 1–5   (8)
Song, 2002 36/35   9 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-Pto-Am-E-Lfx/6Pa-Pto-E-Lfx 1–3, 5   (9)
Zheng, 2004 50/47   6 Chemotherapy regimens+MV H, Z, K, Pto, P and RFT 1–3, 5 (11)
Wu, 2004 43/41 18 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV Pa, RFT, Lfx, Pto and Am (or Z, P, E and Cm) 1–3 (10)
Yao, 2005 30/30 18 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-RFT-Am-Z-Pto-Lfx/15Pa-RFT-Z-Pto-Lfx 1–3, 5 (13)
Chen, 2005 38/41 12 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 2RFT-Lfx-Am-Pa-E/10RFT-Lfx-Pa 1–3, 5 (12)
Wang, 2006 36/35 12 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg/ml MV 3Cp-Ofx-Pa-Z-Pto/9Pa-Ofx-Pto 1–3 (15)
Liu, 2006 34/36 18 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-RFT-Pto-Lfx-Am/15Pa-RFT-Pto-Lfx 1, 3, 5 (14)
Lan, 2007 35/33 18 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-Pto-Lfx-Am-Z/15Pa-Pto-Lfx 1, 3, 5 (16)
Zhao, 2008 52/50 12 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-Cp-Pto-Lfx-E/9Pa-Pto-Lfx-E 1–3, 5 (17)
Xi, 2009 43/41 18 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3P-Lfx-Pto-Am-E/15P-Lfx-Pto-E 1–5 (22)
Chu, 2009 98/91 18 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-RFT-Lfx-Pto-Am-Cm/15Pa-RFT-Lfx-Pto-Cm 1–6 (18)
Hong, 2009 47/45 12 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-Am-Pto-Lfx-E/9Pa-Pto-Lfx-E 1–3, 5, 6 (20)
Gu, 2009 34/36 18 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-RFT-Am-Z-Pto-Lfx/15Pa-RFT-Z-Pto-Lfx 1–3, 5 (19)
Wang, 2009 120/120 18 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-RFT-Am-Z-Pto-Lfx/15Pa-RFT-Z-Pto-Lfx 1–3, 5 (21)
Mei, 2010 40/41 18 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-Lfx-Am-Z/15Pa-Lfx 1, 2, 5 (24)
Zhang, 2010 56/52 12 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-Pto-Z-Lfx-Am/15Pa-Pto-Z-Lfx 1, 3, 6 (25)
Liu, 2010 32/34   9 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV 3Am-Pa-Z-Lfx-E/6Pa-E-Lfx 1, 3 (23)
Zhou, 2011 72/71 21 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV 3Pa-Lfx-Z-Pto-S/18Pa-Lfx-Z-Pto 1–3, 5, 6 (29)
Wang, 2011 60/60 12 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV RFT, Pa, and Lfx 1–3, 5, 7 (27)
Yang, 2011 30/30 12 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV Pa, Pto, Z, Lfx, and Am 1–3 (28)
Sheng, 2011 36/36 21 Chemotherapy regimens+ 22.5 µg MV 3H-P-Cm-Pto-Lfx/18Pa-Pto-Lfx 1–3, 5, 7 (26)
Yin, 2012 17/18 24 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 6Z-Am-Lfx-Pto-P/18Z-Lfx-Pto-P 7 (31)
Chen, 2012 43/40 12 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV Pro, RFT, Lfx, and Pa 7 (30)
Zhang, 2013 72/62 24 Chemotherapy regimens + 22.5 µg MV 6Mfx-Z-Pto-Km-P/18Mfx-Z-Pto-P 1, 4, 5 (32)

Outcome 1, the sputum smear positive-turned-negative rate; 2, the absorption rate; 3, the cavity closure rate; 4, T cell subgroup counts; 5, adverse effects; 6, improvement of symptoms; 7, the effective rate. COT, course of treatment; COD, course of disease; MV, Mycobacterium vaccae; H, isoniazid; R, rifapentine; RFT, rifapentine; Am, amikacin; Z, pyrazinamide; E, ethambutol; S, streptomycin; Pa, pasinizid; P, p-aminosalicylic acid; Km, kanamycin; Cm, capreomycin; Ofx, ofloxacin; Lfx, levofloxacin; Mfx, moxifloxacin; Pto, protionamide; m, male; f, female.

Quality assessment of the included studies.

First author, year Adequate sequence generation Allocation concealment Blinding Incomplete outcome data addressed (Refs.)
Luo, 2000 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes   (8)
Song, 2002 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes   (9)
Zheng, 2004 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (11)
Wu, 2004 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (10)
Yao, 2005 No Unclear Unclear Yes (13)
Chen, 2005 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (12)
Wang, 2006 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (15)
Liu, 2006 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (14)
Lan, 2007 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (16)
Zhao, 2008 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (17)
Xi, 2009 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (22)
Chu, 2009 Yes Unclear Unclear Yes (18)
Hong, 2009 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (20)
Gu, 2009 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (19)
Wang, 2009 No Unclear Unclear Yes (21)
Mei, 2010 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (24)
Zhang, 2010 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (25)
Liu, 2010 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (23)
Zhou, 2011 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (29)
Wang, 2011 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (27)
Yang, 2011 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (28)
Sheng, 2011 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (26)
Yin, 2012 Yes Unclear Unclear Yes (31)
Chen, 2012 Unclear Unclear No Yes (30)
Zhang, 2013 Unclear Unclear Unclear Yes (32)

Sensitivity analysis of the pooled ORs of adjunctive therapy of MV vs. general chemotherapy (without MV).

SSP ATF CSTBC
Variable Total, n OR (95% CI) Total, n OR (95% CI) Total, n OR (95% CI)
Model
  FE 23 3.84 (3.11–4.73) 15 4.08 (3.06–5.45) 18 3.42 (2.68–4.37)
  RE 23 3.73 (3.01–4.61) 15 4.08 (2.75–6.05) 18 3.40 (2.65–4.36)
COT, weeks
  <12   4 4.21 (2.49–7.12)   3 5.28 (2.89–9.66)   3 4.32 (2.42–7.71)
    12   7 5.89 (3.79–9.16)   4 5.10 (2.27–11.45)   6 4.34 (2.72–6.92)
  >12 12 3.15 (2.41–4.12)   8 3.31 (1.77–6.19)   9 2.79 (1.99–3.89)

MV, Mycobacterium vaccae; SSP, sputum smear positive-turned-negative; ATF, absorption of tuberculosis foci; CSTBC, closure situation of tuberculosis cavity; OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval; FE, fixed effect model; RE, random effect model; COT, course of treatment.