Dataset Information

Efficacy and Safety of Chaihu Jia Longgu Muli Decoction in the Treatment of Poststroke Depression: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Chaihu Jia Longgu Muli decoction (CLMD) is widely used in the treatment of poststroke depression (PSD) in China. Some evidences show that it has advantages, but there lacks reliable evidence. This study aims to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of CLMD in the treatment of PSD.

Methods

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CLMD in the treatment of PSD were searched from the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (CBM), from their inception to May 2021. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.

Results

A total of 13 RCTs involving 1665 patients were finally included in this study, among which 5 RCTs were oral CLMD alone versus antidepressants, and 8 RCTs were oral CLMD with antidepressants versus antidepressants. Meta-analysis results showed that oral administration of CLMD could improve Hamilton's Depression Scale (HAMD) and the Modified Edinburgh-Scandinavian Stroke Scale (MESSS) scores, improve the Barthel index, and have a low rate of adverse reactions, but there was no significant difference in the total effective rate (p=0.21 > 0.05) and the National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score (p=0.47 > 0.05) between the antidepressants group and the oral administration of the CLMD group. Oral CLMD combined with antidepressants could improve the total effective rate, HAMD, and MESSS score, but there was no significant difference in Barthel index (p=0.06 > 0.05) and the adverse reaction rate (p=0.14 > 0.05) between the two groups.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that oral CLMD alone or with antidepressants is more effective and safer in the treatment of PSD than oral antidepressants. Due to the limitation of the quality and quantity of the included studies, more high-quality studies are needed to confirm the above conclusion.

SUBMITTER: Wan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8397549 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to create a rank order of the comparative efficacy and acceptability (risk of all-cause discontinuation) of antidepressant treatment in poststroke depression (PSD) by integrating direct and indirect evidence.DesignMultiple-treatments meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.ParticipantsPatients with depression following stroke.Interventions10 antidepressants and placebo in the acute treatment of PSD.Outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were the overall efficacy, defined as the mean change of the total depression score. The secondary outcome was the acceptability, defined as risk of all-cause discontinuation. These estimates as standardised mean differences or ORs with 95% CIs.ResultsWe identified 12 suitable trials, with data from 707 participants. All drugs were significantly more effective than placebo apart from sertraline, nefiracetam and fluoxetine. Most of the comparisons for acceptability revealed no significant differences except that paroxetine had significantly lower all-cause discontinuation than doxepin, citalopram and fluoxetine. Standardised mean differences compared with placebo for efficacy varied from -6.54 for the best drug (reboxetine) to 0.51 for the worst drug (nefiracetam). ORs compared with placebo for acceptability ranged from 0.09 for the best drug (paroxetine) to 3.42 for the worst drug (citalopram). For the efficacy rank, reboxetine, paroxetine, doxepin and duloxetine were among the most efficacious treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 100%, 85.7%, 83.2%, 62.4%, respectively. With respect to the acceptability rank, paroxetine, placebo, sertraline and nortriptyline were among the most acceptable treatments, the cumulative probabilities of which were 92.4%, 63.5%, 57.3%, 56.3%.ConclusionAfter weighing the efficacy and acceptability, we conclude that paroxetine might be the best choice when starting acute treatment for PSD, and fluoxetine might be the worst choice.Trial registration numberThis systematic review has been registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Review Protocols (PROSPERO) public database (CRD42017054741; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

Project description:This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyze the efficacy and safety of Sihogayonggolmoryeo-tang (SGYMT), a classical herbal medicine consisting of 11 herbs, for treatment of post-stroke depression (PSD). Thirteen databases were comprehensively searched from their inception dates until July 2019. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using SGYMT as a monotherapy or adjunctive therapy for PSD patients were included. Where appropriate data were available, meta-analysis was performed and presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the quality of RCTs using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Jadad scale. The quality of evidence for each main outcome was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Twenty-one RCTs with 1,644 participants were included. In the comparison between the SGYMT and antidepressants groups, the SGYMT group scored significantly lower on both the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) (8 studies; MD -2.08, 95% CI -2.62 to -1.53, I2?=?34%) and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) (2 studies; MD -0.84, 95% CI -1.40 to -0.29, I2?=?19%), and significantly higher on the Barthel index (3 studies; MD 4.30, 95% CI 2.04 to 6.57, I2?=?66%). Moreover, the SGYMT group was associated with significantly fewer adverse events (6 studies; RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.37, I2?=?0%) than the antidepressants group. In the subgroup analysis, SGYMT treatment consistently reduced HAMD scores within the first 8 weeks of treatment, but thereafter this difference between groups disappeared. Comparisons between SGYMT combined with antidepressants, and antidepressants alone, showed significantly lower scores in the combination group for both HAMD (7 studies; MD?=?-6.72, 95% CI?=?-11.42 to -2.01, I2?=?98%) and NIHSS scores (4 studies; MD -3.03, 95% CI -3.60 to -2.45, I2?=?87%). In the subgroup analysis, the reductions of HAMD scores in the SGYMT combined with antidepressants group were consistent within 4 weeks of treatment, but disappeared thereafter. The quality of RCTs was generally low and the quality of evidence evaluated by the GRADE approach was rated mostly "Very low" to "Moderate." The main causes of low quality ratings were the high risk of bias and imprecision of results. Current evidence suggests that SGYMT, used either as a monotherapy or an adjuvant therapy to antidepressants, might have potential benefits for the treatment of PSD, including short-term reduction of depressive symptoms, improvement of neurological symptoms, and few adverse events. However, since the methodological quality of the included studies was generally low and there were no large placebo trials to ensure reliability, it remains difficult to draw definitive conclusions on this topic. Further well-designed RCTs addressing these shortcomings are needed to confirm our results.

Project description:Objective:Lumbar disc herniation (LDH) is based on the degenerative changes of the intervertebral disc. Many drugs are used to treat and prevent LDH, including Western medicine and Chinese medicine. Duhuo Jisheng Decoction (DHJSD) is one of the most classic Chinese medicine prescriptions. The purpose of our meta-analysis is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of modified DHJSD in the treatment of LDH. Methods:We searched multiple databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases, Wanfang Database, and Chinese Scientific Journal Database (VIP) to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis was registered at INPLASY with reference number ID: INPLASY202060053. Results:Fourteen randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified, including 1560 patients. This meta-analysis showed that the total effective rate and cure rate of modified DHJSD are higher than those of diclofenac sodium enteric-coated tablets (total effective rate: RR?=?1.18, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.25, P < 0.0001, I 2?=?0%; cure rate: RR?=?1.60, 95% CI: 1.30 to 1.97, P < 0.00001, I 2?=?2%), diclofenac sodium enteric-coated tablets plus ibuprofen and indomethacin (total effective rate: RR?=?1.23, 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.37, P=0.0001, I 2?=?0%; cure rate: RR?=?1.58, 95% CI: 1.22 to 2.04, P=0.0005, I 2?=?0%), and diclofenac sodium sustained-release capsule (total effective rate: RR?=?1.49, 95% CI: 1.27 to 1.74, P < 0.00001, I 2?=?0%; cure rate: RR?=?10.07, 95% CI: 3.29 to 30.88, P < 0.00001, I 2?=?5%). Modified DHJSD was also better than Western medicine (MD?=?-1.56, 95% CI: -2.42 to -0.70, P=0.0004, I 2?=?74%) in terms of visual analogue scale (VAS) scores. Three RCTs showed no adverse events in the modified DHJSD group, but adverse events existed in the Western medicine group. Conclusion:This meta-analysis showed that modified DHJSD had a more favorable effect on the treatment of LDH than Western medicine, and there were no obvious adverse events. More high-quality RCTs are needed to complement existing conclusions.

Project description:Background: Qingfei Paidu decoction (QFPD) has been widely used in treating COVID-19 in China. However, there is still a lack of comprehensive and systematic evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness and safety of QFPD. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of QFPD in patients with COVID-19. Methods: We searched seven databases up to 5 March 2021. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data of interest, and assessed risk of bias. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized controlled trials. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to assess the risk of bias of cohort and non-randomized trials. The "Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group" was adopted for controlled pre-post studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We carried out a random effect meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. For outcomes that could not be meta-analyzed, we performed a descriptive analysis. Results: We identified 16 studies with 11,237 patients, including one RCT, six non-randomized trials, two cohort studies, and seven pre-post studies. The certainty of evidence was low to very low because of the observational study design. QFPD combined with conventional treatment might decrease the time for nucleic acid conversion (MD = -4.78 days, 95% CI: -5.79 to -3.77), shorten the length of hospital stay (MD = -7.95 days, 95% CI: -14.66 to -1.24), shorten the duration of symptoms recovery of fever (MD = -1.51 days, 95% CI: -1.92 to -1.09), cough (MD = -1.64 days, 95% CI: -1.91 to -1.36) and chest CT (MD = -2.23 days, 95% CI: -2.46 to -2.00), improve the overall traditional Chinese medicine symptom scores (MD = 41.58 scores, 95% CI: 32.67 to 50.49), and change the laboratory indexes, such as WBC, AST, and CRP. Conclusion: QFPD combined with conventional treatment might be effective for patients with COVID-19. No serious adverse reactions related to QFPD were observed. Further high-quality studies are still needed in the future.

Project description:BackgroundLongdan Xiegan decoction (LDXGD) has been widely used in the treatment of eczema. In recent years, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of LDXGD for the treatment of eczema have gradually increased. Most of the results show that LDXGD is effective in treating eczema. However, whether these conclusions are reliable or not requires meta-analysis.ObjectiveThis study aimed to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of LDXGD in the treatment of eczema.Materials and methodsSeven electronic databases, including PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Cochrane Library, Chinese Biomedical Literature on Disc (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang, and Chinese Science and Technology Periodical Database (VIP) were systematically searched from their inception until January 2021. Risk of bias was assessed using criteria from the Cochrane Collaboration and meta-analysis was conducted on the screened literature data using Review Manage (RevMan 5.3). Then, to assess the quality of evidence, the GRADE criteria was adopted.Results14 RCTs with 1080 participants were identified. Meta-analysis indicated that compared with western medicine (WM), the cure rate and the total effective rate of LDXGD in treating eczema were higher. Meanwhile, the recurrence rate and the levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8 (IL-8), and tumor necrosis factor (TNF-α) after treatment were lower. The adverse reaction was reported in 5 out of 14 studies without significant statistical difference. According to GRADE criteria, the quality of evidence was low for all outcomes except for the cure rate (moderate-quality evidence) and the total effective rate (moderate-quality evidence).ConclusionThe clinical efficacy of LDXGD in the treatment of eczema was more effective compared with the one of conventional WM alone. However, due to the limitation of the quality of the included studies, additional studies are required to further confirm these results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rheumatoid arthritis has the characteristics of slow progression, long course, and repeated attacks. At present, western medicine commonly used in clinical practice not only reduces pain and improves symptoms, but also has more adverse reactions, affecting the health, and life of patients. In ancient China, Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu decoction was used by doctors to treat rheumatoid arthritis, with remarkable effect. In recent years, many clinical studies have also shown that Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu decoction has reliable effect in treating rheumatoid arthritis, but there is no evidence of evidence-based medicine. Therefore, this study aims to systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu decoction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS:Using computer to retrieve PubMed, The Cochrance Library, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP and Wanfang database, in addition manually retrieve Google academic and Baidu academic to collect all randomized controlled trials for Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu decoction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, including relevant academic journal and conference papers, dissertations, from the establishment of the database to July 2020. After 2 evaluators independently screened the literature, extracted the data, and evaluated the risk of bias included in the study, RevMan5.3 software was used to analyze the data. RESULTS:This research evaluate the efficacy and safety of Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu decoction in treating Rheumatoid arthritis from the aspects of clinical efficacy rate, visual analog scale (VAS), swollen joint count (SJC), morning stiffness time, Rrythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), rheumatoid factor (RF), and adverse reaction incidence. CONCLUSION:This study will provide reliable evidence for the clinical application of Huangqi Guizhi Wuwu decoction in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The private information from individuals will not publish. This systematic review also will not involve endangering participant rights. Ethical approval is not required. The results may be published in a peer-reviewed journal or disseminated in relevant conferences. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/RZY3V.