Dataset Information

Prevalence of the Use of Herbal Medicines among Patients with Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although herbal medicines are used by patients with cancer in multiple oncology care settings, the magnitude of herbal medicine use in this context remains unclear. The purpose of this review was to establish the prevalence of herbal medicine use among patients with cancer, across various geographical settings and patient characteristics (age and gender categories).

Methods

Electronic databases that were searched for data published, from January 2000 to January 2020, were Medline (PubMed), Google Scholar, Embase, and African Index Medicus. Eligible studies reporting prevalence estimates of herbal medicine use amongst cancer patients were pooled using random-effects meta-analyses. Studies were grouped by World Bank region and income groups. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore source of heterogeneity.

Results

In total, 155 studies with data for 809,065 participants (53.95% female) met the inclusion criteria. Overall, the pooled prevalence of the use of herbal medicine among patients with cancer was 22% (95% confidence interval (CI): 18%-25%), with the highest prevalence estimates for Africa (40%, 95% CI: 23%-58%) and Asia (28%, 95% CI: 21%-35%). The pooled prevalence estimate was higher across low- and middle-income countries (32%, 95% CI: 23%-42%) and lower across high-income countries (17%, 95% CI: 14%-21%). Higher pooled prevalence estimates were found for adult patients with cancer (22%, 95% CI: 19%-26%) compared with children with cancer (18%, 95% CI: 11%-27%) and for female patients (27%, 95% CI: 19%-35%) compared with males (17%, 95% CI: 1%-47%).

Conclusion

Herbal medicine is used by a large percentage of patients with cancer use. The findings of this review highlight the need for herbal medicine to be integrated in cancer care.

SUBMITTER: Asiimwe JB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8149249 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRadiation pneumonitis is a common and serious complication of radiotherapy. Many published randomized controlled studies (RCTs) reveal a growing trend of using herbal medicines as adjuvant therapy to prevent radiation pneumonitis; however, their efficacy and safety remain unexplored.ObjectiveThe aim of this systematic review is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of herbal medicines as adjunctive therapy for the prevention of radiation pneumonitis in patients with lung cancer who undergo radiotherapy.MethodsWe searched the following 11 databases: three English medical databases [MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)], five Korean medical databases (Korean Studies Information, Research information Service System, KoreaMed, DBPIA, National Digital Science Library), and three Chinese medical databases [the China National Knowledge Database (CNKI), Journal Integration Platform (VIP), and WanFang Database]. The primary outcome was the incidence of radiation pneumonitis. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.ResultsTwenty-two RCTs involving 1819 participants were included. The methodological quality was poor for most of the studies. Meta-analysis showed that herbal medicines combined with radiotherapy significantly reduced the incidence of radiation pneumonitis (n = 1819; RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.45-0.63, I2 = 8%) and the incidence of severe radiation pneumonitis (n = 903; RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.41, I2 = 0%). Combined therapy also improved the Karnofsky performance score (n = 420; WMD 4.62, 95% CI 1.05-8.18, I2 = 82%).ConclusionThere is some encouraging evidence that oral administration of herbal medicines combined with radiotherapy may benefit patients with lung cancer by preventing or minimizing radiation pneumonitis. However, due to the poor methodological quality of the identified studies, definitive conclusion could not be drawn. To confirm the merits of this approach, further rigorously designed large scale trials are warranted.

Project description:Purpose: Chemotherapy-induced gastrointestinal (CIGI) toxicity affects the quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) and the clinical application of treatment drugs. This review aims to evaluate the efficacy of traditional herbal medicines (HMs) in alleviating symptoms of CIGI toxicity (including nausea and vomiting, anorexia, diarrhea, constipation, oral mucositis, abdominal pain, and abdominal distension), and to explore further individual herb or herbal combinations in alleviating the CIGI toxicity. Methods: Nine electronic databases were screened from 2010 to 2020. Twenty-two randomized controlled trials with a total of 1,995 patients evaluating the complementary efficacy of HMs with chemotherapy compared with chemotherapy-alone were included. Further, sensitivity analyses of orally administered multi-ingredient HM interventions were explored based on the composition of HM interventions. Results: The meta-analysis showed that HM treatment combined with chemotherapy significantly alleviated the overall CIGI toxicity (RR = 0.78 [0.72, 0.84], p < 0.001, I 2 = 44%), nausea and vomiting (RR = 0.74 [0.66, 0.82], p < 0.001, I 2 = 35%), diarrhea (P = 0.02, RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.44-0.93, I 2 = 50%), oral mucositis (RR = 0.65 [0.48, 0.88], P = 0.005, I 2 = 24%), and abdominal distension (RR = 0.36 [0.18, 0.73], P = 0.004, I 2 = 0%). However, no statistically significant effects of HMs were shown in studies with a double-blind design for CIGI toxicity. Based on the ingredients of the HMs, further sensitivity analyses identified five herbs [Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch., Atractylodes macrocephala Koidz., Astragalus membranaceus (Fisch.) Bge., Codonopsis pilosula (Franch.) Nannf., and the pericarp of Citrus reticulata Blanco.] that were associated with significant reductions in CIGI toxicity. Conclusion: A statistically significant effect of HMs combined with chemotherapy on alleviating the overall CIGI toxicity, nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, oral mucositis, or abdominal distension is only shown in studies without a double-blind design. Further well-designed, double-blinded, large-scaled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are warranted to comprehensively evaluate the treatment efficacy. Further clinical research that includes the five herbs with chemotherapy for patients, the safety of the combinations of these herbs, and the potential synergistic effects of these combinations of herbs should be conducted.

Project description:Purpose: This study aimed to comprehensively review the effect of combining herbal medicine (HM) with Western Medicine (WM) compared to WM alone on bone mineral density (BMD) improvement for osteoporosis in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were searched using 10 databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Nation Information by NII. We selected studies that used BMD as an evaluation index and administered HM treatment for osteoporosis in patients with RA. Subsequently, a meta-analysis was conducted using BMD as a continuous variable using RevMan version 5.4. Results: Eighteen RCTs that met the eligibility criteria of this study were selected. The total number of study participants was 1,491 (481 men and 1,010 women). The mean age of participants was 52.4 ± 7.4 years, and the mean morbidity period of RA was 6.8 ± 1.3 years. In all studies, disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs; 16 RCTs) or bisphosphonates (two RCTs) were used as WM co-intervention with HMs (17 types of HM, 18 RCTs). Overall, the combination of HM and WM improved the BMD score, producing better results than WM alone. In particular, when HM was used in combination with DMARDs, which were used in most studies, BMD improved by 0.04 g/cm2 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.03–0.05, p < 0.001, I2 = 19%) in the lumbar spine and 0.03 g/cm2 (95% CI: 0.02–0.03, p < 0.001, I2 = 0%) in the femoral neck compared to the DMARDs alone group after treatment. In addition to BMD, bone markers and inflammatory indicators evaluated by each RCT showed significant improvement after HM plus WM treatment. In the analysis of frequently prescribed HMs, the BMD after treatment was higher by 0.04 g/cm2 (95% CI: 0.03–0.04, p < 0.001, I2 = 45%) in the Xianlinggubao-capsule plus methotrexate (MTX) group and by 0.02 g/cm2 (95% CI: 0.00–0.03, p = 0.04, I2 = 0) in the Hanbikang-tang plus MTX group compared to the MTX alone group. Conclusion: This systematic review cautiously provides evidence for the combined therapeutic effect of HM and WM for osteoporosis in patients with RA. However, well-designed, large-scale clinical trials are necessary before recommending this combination therapy for osteoporosis in patients with RA. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=331854], identifier [CRD42022331854].