![Man ultramarathon runner in the mountains he trains at sunset](https://d2csxpduxe849s.cloudfront.net/media/E32629C6-9347-4F84-81FEAEF7BFA342B3/0B4B1380-42EB-4FD5-9D7E2DBC603E79F8/webimage-C4875379-1478-416F-B03DF68FE3D8DBB5.png)
94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Pharmacol.
Sec. Ethnopharmacology
Volume 16 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fphar.2025.1413597
The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Introduction: Sepsis patients with diabetes are at a high clinical risk. It is well reported that Xuebijing injection, has good clinical benefit in sepsis individuals. However, there is not yet any relevant report about the efficacy and safety of XBJ in sepsis patients with comorbid diabetes.Methods: Two large randomized controlled clinical trials data were combined and post-hoc analyses were performed, XBJ-SAP (ChiCTR-TRC-13003534) and EXIT-SEP (NCT0323874). Sepsis patients with diabetes were further divided into XBJ-treated group and placebo group based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The primary outcome (28-day mortality) and secondary outcomes (mortality in the ICU and in the post-randomization hospital, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II (APACHE II) score and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score) were compared between the XBJ treatment and placebo groups in sepsis patients with diabetes status at baseline. Moreover, the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) was also assessed.Results: At the study baseline, a total of 378 sepsis patients (227 men [60.0%] and 151 women [40.0%]; mean [SD] age, 60.3 [11.1] years) were considered to have diabetes, of which 177 received XBJ and 201 received placebo administration. Among these sepsis patients with diabetes, mortality at 28 days was significantly lower in the XBJ group than in the placebo group (29 of 173 patients [16.8%] vs 56 of 198 patients [28.3%], P = 0.01) and the absolute risk difference was 11.5%(95%CI, 3.1% to 19.9%). Furthermore, there was no difference in the overall incidence of adverse events (AEs) when XBJ was used (24.4% [42 of 172 patients] vs 27. 7% [54 of 195 patients].Discussion: The present study underscores the pivotal role of XBJ in modulating the immune response amongst sepsis patients suffering from 3 diabetes mellitus, exploring the positive effects of XBJ on sepsis patients with diabetes mellitus. The efficacy and safety of XBJ compared with placebo were consistent with the overall trial findings, demonstrating that XBJ is efficacious in sepsis patients with diabetes and suggesting that there is no need for special safety precautions.
Keywords: Xuebijing injection, Sepsis, diabetes, Pooled data, Post hoc analysis
Received: 07 Apr 2024; Accepted: 12 Feb 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Liu, Dai, Li, Yang, Zhang, Hu, Liu, Feng, Zhang and Yang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Yan Liu, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100001, Beijing Municipality, China
Tianyi Yang, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, 30322, Georgia, United States
Si Liu, Tianjin Chasesun Pharmaceutical Co.,Ltd, Tianjin, China
Chi Zhang, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
Xiaohui Yang, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100001, Beijing Municipality, China
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Research integrity at Frontiers
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.