Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of Tripterygium wilfordii hook F for chronic urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The first-line agents comprising antihistamines for chronic urticaria, are not completely satisfactory. Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF), a Chinese herb, has been developed into several Tripterygium agents and have definite effects on autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. In chronic urticaria, however, their values of practical application remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TwHF in patients with chronic urticaria.

Methods

Several databases were systematically searched including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China Network Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journals Database, Wan Fang Database, and Chinese Biomedicine. Randomized controlled trials comparing antihistamines with TwHF or Tripterygium agents in combination with antihistamines were included. Revman5.3 was utilized to calculate risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42018091595.

Results

Twenty-one trials with 2565 participants were included in this analysis. Meta-analysis showed that, when antihistamines were combined with TwHF and Tripterygium agents, the curative effect in cases of chronic urticaria was superior to that of antihistamines alone (RR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.33-1.46). The incidence rates of gastrointestinal disorder (RR: 2.91; 95% CI: 1.70-4.99) and menstrual disorder (RR: 6.00; 95% CI: 1.79-20.13) in drug combination groups were higher than those in controls, while other adverse events were similar between the two groups. After treatment, Dermatology Life Quality Index (RR: 1.23; 95% CI: 1.09-1.40), quality of sleep (RR: 1.50; 95% CI: 1.07-2.12), and daily activity (RR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.25-1.78) were all improved. Furthermore, drug combination groups demonstrated less relapse (RR: 0.34; 95% CI: 0.25-0.45).

Conclusions

TwHF and Tripterygium agents, in combination with antihistamines, appear to be more effective than antihistamines alone. Nevertheless, adverse events cannot be ignored. Large sample, multi-center, high-quality clinical studies are needed to verify the exact effects and safety of TwHF and Tripterygium agents in treatment of chronic urticaria.

SUBMITTER: Liu L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6119305 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy and safety of Tripterygium wilfordii hook F for chronic urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Liu Liu L Zhao Huaibo H Sun Xiaoying X Zheng Qi Q Luo Ying Y Ru Yi Y Zhang Ying Y Chen Xi X Zhu Bo B Yin Chengqian C Li Bin B Li Xin X

BMC complementary and alternative medicine 20180831 1

<h4>Background</h4>The first-line agents comprising antihistamines for chronic urticaria, are not completely satisfactory. Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF), a Chinese herb, has been developed into several Tripterygium agents and have definite effects on autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. In chronic urticaria, however, their values of practical application remain unclear. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of TwHF in patients with chronic urticaria.<h4>Methods ...[more]

PMID: 30170584

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Tripterygium wilfordii Hook. F (TwHF), a Chinese herbal medicine used to treat CTD-ILD patients in China, has been previously found to have immunoinhibitory, antifibrotic and anti inflammatory effects. It has also shown good results in treating autoimmune and inflammatory diseases. Objectives: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of TwHF for CTD-ILD. Methods: A systematic search was performed on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and CBM databases up to May 2021. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TwHF plus conventional therapy versus conventional therapy alone were included. We followed the PRISMA checklist, and applied Cochrane handbook 5.1.0 and RevMan 5.3 for data analysis and quality evaluation of the included studies. Results: Based on Cochrane handbook 5.1.0, nine RCTs consisting 650 patients met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and were selected for further analysis. The obtained data showed significant improvement in lung function with TwHF plus conventional treatment compared with conventional treatment (post-treatment FVC% (MD= 8.68, 95%Cl (5.10, 12.26), p < 0.00001), FEV1% (MD = 11.24, 95%Cl (6.87, 15.61), p < 0.00001), TLC% (MD = 5.28, 95%Cl (0.69, 9.87), p = 0.02)], but no significant difference in the post-treatment DLCO% [(MD = 4.40, 95%Cl (-2.29, 11.09), p = 0.20)]. Moreover, the data showed that TwHF combined with conventional treatment significantly reduced the HRCT integral of patients [MD = -0.65, 95% (-1.01, -0.30), p = 0.0003], the level of erythrocyte sedimentation rate (MD = -9.52, 95%Cl (-11.55, -7.49), p < 0.00001), c-reactive protein (CRP) (MD = -8.42, 95%Cl (-12.47, -4.38), p < 0.0001), and rheumatoid factor (MD = -25.48, 95%Cl (-29.36, -21.60), p < 0.00001). Compared to conventional therapy, TwHF combined with conventional therapy significantly improved clinical effects (RR = 1.33, 95%Cl (1.17, 1.51), p < 0.0001), in five trials with 354 patients. In terms of improvement of symptoms and signs, the TwHF group showed a more significant improvement than the conventional treatment group (Cough (MD = -0.96, 95%Cl (-1.43, -0.50), p < 0.0001), velcro rales (MD = -0.32, 95%Cl (-0.44, -0.20), p < 0.00001), shortness of breath (MD = -1.11, 95%Cl (-1.67, -0.56), p < 0.0001)], but no statistical difference in dyspnea (MD = -0.66, 95%Cl (-1.35, 0.03), p = 0.06). There was no statistical significance in the incidence of adverse reactions. Conclusion: The performed meta-analysis indicated that TwHF combined with conventional treatment was more beneficial to patients for improving symptoms, lung function and laboratory indicators. As it included studies with relatively small sample size, the findings require confirmation by further rigorously well-designed RCTs.

Project description:Background: Currently, the optimal therapy plan for idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) remains controversial as there has been no comprehensive and systematic comparison of therapy plans for IMN. Therefore, in this study, a Bayesian meta-analysis was used to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of various intervention plans involving traditional Chinese medicine TWM in the treatment of IMN. Methods: An electronic search in 7 databases was conducted from their inception to August 2022 for all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of various intervention plans for IMN. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was performed by using software R, and the surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) probability curve was plotted for each outcome indicator to rank the efficacy and safety of different intervention plans. Results: A total of 30 RCTs were included, involving 13 interventions. The results showed that (1) in terms of total remission (TR), ① GC + CNI + TWM was the best effective among all plans, and the addition and subtraction plan of CNI + TWM was the best effective for IMN; ② All plans involving TWM were more effective than GG; ③ Among monotherapy plans for IMN, TWM was more effective distinctly than GC, while TWM and CNI were similarly effective; ④ Among multidrug therapy plans for IMN, the addition of TWM to previously established therapy plans made the original plans more effective; ⑤The efficacy of combining TWM with other plans was superior to that of TWM alone. (2) In terms of lowering 24 h-UTP, GC + TWM was the best effective and more effective than TWM. (3) In terms of safety, there was no statistically significant difference between all groups. However, CNI + TWM was the safest. No serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in all the included studies. Conclusion: The addition of TWM may be beneficial to patients with IMN. It may enhance the efficacy of previously established treatment protocols without leading to additional safety risks. In particular, GC + CNI + TWM, GC + TWM, and CNI + TWM with better efficacy and higher safety can be preferred in clinical decision-making as the therapy plans for IMN.

Project description:BackgroundThe present study aims to comprehensively determine the efficacy of different therapy regimens based on Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF) for patients with primary nephrotic syndrome (PNS) using network meta-analysis method.MethodsSeven electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the differences between different therapy regimens based on TwHF for patients with PNS. The risk of bias in included RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane Handbook version 5.2.0. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare different regimens. Primary outcomes were complete remission rate and total remission rate. The secondary outcomes were hr urinary protein excretion, serum albumin, serum creatinine, and urea nitrogen. Data analysis was performed using R software.ResultsA total of 40 studies involving 2846 patients with PNS were included. Compared with prednisone, the improvement in total remission rate and complete remission rate was associated with TwHF alone (odds ratio [OR] = 4.80, 95% credible intervals [CrI]: 2.20-10.00; OR = 6.30, 95% CrI: 2.90-13.00, respectively), TwHF+prednisone (OR?=?2.10, 95% CrI: 1.30-3.50; OR?=?2.40, 95% CrI: 1.50-3.80, respectively), TwHF+CPA (OR?=?12.00, 95% CrI: 1.10-150.00; OR?=?16.00, 95% CrI: 1.60-170.00, respectively), and TwHF+Cyclosporine A (OR?=?28.00, 95% CrI: 3.20-250.00; OR?=?35.00, 95% CrI: 4.50-270.00, respectively). Compared with TwHF alone, TwHF+prednisone showed less benefit in improving total remission rate and complete remission rate (OR?=?0.44, 95% CrI: 0.21-0.91; OR?=?0.38, 95% CrI: 0.19-0.77, respectively). TwHF alone, TwHF+prednisone could significantly reduce hr urinary protein excretion (MD?=?-0.69, 95% CrI: -1.30 to -0.14; MD?=?-1.00, 95% CrI: -1.90 to -0.14, respectively) and increase serum albumin (MD?=?5.90, 95% CrI: 2.50-9.30; MD?=?3.40, 95% CrI: 1.30-5.50, respectively) when compared to prednisone alone. TwHF alone showed significant reduction in serum creatinine when compared to CPA (MD?=?-19.00, 95% CrI: -37.00 to -0.56).ConclusionsTwHF alone, the addition TwHF to prednisone showed more benefit in improving total and complete remission rate, hr urinary protein excretion, serum albumin, and serum creatinine.

Project description:ObjectivesTo summarize the quantity and quality of evidence for using Tripterygium wilfordii Hook. f. (TwHF) preparations in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and to find the reasons of the disparity by comprehensively appraising the related systematic reviews (SRs).MethodsWe performed an overview of evidence for the effectiveness and safety of TwHF preparations for patients with RA. We searched seven literature databases from inception to July 15, 2021. We included SRs of TwHF preparations in the treatment of RA. Four tools were used to evaluate the reporting quality, methodological quality, risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence for the included SRs, which are the PRISMA, the AMSTAR-2, the ROBIS, and the GRADE approach.ResultsWe included 27 SRs (with 385 studies and 33,888 participants) for this overview. The AMSTAR-2 showed that 19 SRs had critically low methodological quality and the remaining 8 had low methodological quality. The rate of overlaps was 68.31% (263/385), and the CCA (corrected covered area) was 0.53, which indicated the degree of overlap is slight. Based on the assessment of ROBIS, all 27 SRs were rated as low risk in phase 1; one SR was rated as low risk in domain 1, 9 SRs were in low risk in domain 2, 16 SRs were in low risk in domain 3, and 16 SRs were in low risk in domain 4 in phase 2; 7 SRs were rated as low risk in phase 3. Among 27 items of PRISMA, 15 items were reported over 70% of compliance, the reporting quality of 16 SRs was rated as "fair," and 11 were "good." Using GRADE assessment, moderate quality of evidence was found in 5 outcomes, and 5 outcomes were low quality.ConclusionThe use of TwHF preparations for the treatment of RA may be clinically effective according to the moderate-quality evidence. There are methodological issues, risk of bias, and reporting deficiencies still needed to be improved. SRs with good quality and further randomized clinical trials that focus on clinical important outcomes are needed.

Dataset Information

Efficacy and safety of Tripterygium wilfordii hook F for chronic urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Efficacy and safety of Tripterygium wilfordii hook F for chronic urticaria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets