Dataset Information

The Efficacy of Antioxidative Stress Therapy on Oxidative Stress Levels in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore the efficacy of antioxidative stress therapy on oxidative stress levels in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) by a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Methods

Chinese and English databases such as PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China Biomedical Literature were searched, mainly searching for clinical randomized controlled trials of antioxidant therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. The search time is from the establishment of the database to July 2021. Two researchers independently carried out literature search, screening, and data extraction. The bias risk tool provided by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to evaluate the bias risk of all the included literature, and the RevMan 5.3 software was used for meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 24 RCTs (28 records) and 1277 participants were included. The time span of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is from 1986 to 2020. These RCTs involve 14 types of antioxidants or antioxidant therapies, and these therapies have varying degrees of improvement on oxidative stress in RA patients. The summary results showed that the MDA in the experiment group is lower (SMD -0.82, 95% CI -1.35 to -0.28, P = 0.003). The difference of TAC, SOD, NO, GPx, CAT, and GSH between two groups was of no statistical significance (TAC (SMD 0.27, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.75, P = 0.27), SOD (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.40, P = 0.41), NO (SMD -2.03, 95% CI -4.22 to 0.16, P = 0.07), GPx (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.54, P = 0.13), CAT (SMD 2.95, 95% CI -2.6 to 8.51, P = 0.30), and GSH (SMD 2.46, 95% CI -0.06 to 4.98, P = 0.06)). For adverse events, the summary results showed that the difference was of no statistical significance (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.71, P = 0.45). In addition, antioxidant therapy has also shown improvement in clinical efficacy indexes (number of tender joints, number of swollen joints, DAS28, VAS, and HAQ) and inflammation indexes (ESR, CRP, TNF-α, and IL6) for RA patients.

Conclusion

The existing evidence shows potential benefits, mainly in reducing MDA and increasing TAC and GSH in some subgroups. However, more large samples and higher quality RCTs are needed to provide high-quality evidence, so as to provide more clinical reference information for the antioxidant treatment of RA.

SUBMITTER: Zeng L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8517629 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:We aimed to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of probiotics supplementation on symptoms and disease activity in patients with chronic inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis (RA), spondylarthritis (SpA), or psoriatic arthritis). A systematic literature review and meta-analysis from RA and SpA randomized controlled trials were conducted searching for articles in MEDLINE/PubMed and abstracts from recent international rheumatology meetings. The control group was a placebo or another dietary intervention. The risk of bias of the selected studies was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Jadad scale. The initial search yielded 173 articles. Of these, 13 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, 8 concerning a total of 344 RA patients and 2 concerning a total of 197 SpA patients. Three meta-analyses were also analyzed. Probiotic strains and quantities used were different among trials (5 studies using Lactobacillus sp., 1 trial Bacillus coagulans and the others a mix of different probiotic strains). Time to assess response ranged from 8 weeks to one year. Two studies associated probiotic supplementation with a dietary intervention. Meta-analysis showed a statistically significant decrease of C-reactive protein (CRP) concentration (mean difference (MD)) -3.04 (95% CI -4.47, -1.62) mg/L, p < 0.001; I2 = 20%, n patients = 209) with probiotics in RA. However, after excluding high-risk-of-bias trials of meta-analysis, there was no difference between probiotics and placebo on DAS28 (standard MD -0.54; 95% CI -1.94 to 0.85, p = 0.45, I2 93%, n patients = 143). The two studies on SpA patients showed no efficacy of probiotics. Probiotic supplementation might decrease RA activity with a moderate decrease effect on CRP, but lack of evidence and studies' heterogeneity do not allow us to propose them to patients with inflammatory arthritis to control their disease. Further RCTs are required in the future to determinate the efficacy of probiotics and the optimal administration design.

Project description:BackgroundThe refractory, repetitive, and disabling characteristic of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has seriously influenced the patients' quality of life, and makes it a major public health problem. As a classic complementary and alternative therapy, acupuncture is usually applied for RA combined with disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs). However, there are various types of acupuncture, and the curative effects are different in different acupuncture therapies. In this study, we evaluated the clinical efficacy of different acupuncture therapies combined with DMARDs in the treatment of RA.MethodsThe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture combined with DMARDs in the treatment of RA were searched in both English and Chinese database of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP database, Wanfang, and SinoMED, up to October 2021. Literature screening, data extraction, and evaluation of the risk of bias were carried out independently by two researchers, and the data were analyzed by Stata14.2 and GeMTC 0.14.3 software.ResultsA total of 32 RCTs were included, including 2,115 RA patients. The results of network meta-analysis were as follows: in terms of improving DAS28 score, Electro-acupuncture + DMARDs has the best efficacy. In terms of improving VAS score, Fire Needle + DMARDs showed the best efficacy. In terms of improving morning stiffness time, acupuncture-related therapies combined with DMARDs were not better than DMARDs alone in improving morning stiffness time in RA patients. In terms of reducing CRP and ESR, Fire Needle + DMARDs showed the best efficacy. In terms of reducing RF, Moxibustion + DMARDs has the best efficacy.ConclusionsThe comprehensive comparison of the outcome indicators in 8 different treatments indicates that electro-acupuncture combined with DMARDs is the best combined therapy in improving DAS28 score, while in terms of improving pain and serological markers, fire needle combined with DMARDs and moxibustion combined with DMARDs were the best combined therapies. However, it is impossible to find out which is better between fire needle and moxibustion due to the limited studies. Clinically, appropriate treatment should be selected according to the actual situation.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails, CRD42021278233.

Project description:ObjectiveAcupuncture has been used by rehabilitation specialists as an adjunctive treatment for the symptomatic treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the efficacy of acupuncture in treating patients with RA.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in CBM, CNKI, PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Embase from their inception up to March 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) without the language restriction, concerning the patients with RA treated with acupuncture, were included. Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool. Weight mean difference (MD) and 95% CI were calculated, and data were pooled with random effects model.ResultsA total of eleven RCTs involving 796 patients with RA met the established inclusion criteria. This systematic review indicated the efficacy of acupuncture as an adjunctive treatment for patients with RA. Invasive acupuncture could reduce significantly in pain (MD = -1.00, 95% CI: -1.96 to -0.05, P=0.040), health assessment questionnaire (HAQ, MD = -0.20, 95% CI: -0.30 to -0.11, P < 0.001), physician global assessment (PhGA, MD = -0.98, 95% CI: -1.23 to -0.72, P < 0.001), tender joint count (TJC, MD = -1.24, 95% CI: -2.11 to -0.37, P=0.005), C-reactive protein (CRP, MD = -1.81, 95% CI: -3.32 to -0.29, P=0.019), and erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR, MD = -3.03, 95% CI: -5.80 to -0.26, P=0.032), while compared to control group. Laser acupuncture could reduce HAQ (MD = -0.15, 95% CI: -0.28 to -0.01, P=0.034), the RA quality of life questionnaire (RAQoL, MD = -2.32, 95% CI: -4.40 to -0.25, P=0.028), CRP (MD = -35.24, 95% CI: -36.49 to -33.99, P < 0.001), and interleukin-6 (IL-6, MD = -29.63, 95% CI: -49.34 to -9.92, P=0.003), while compared to control group. No adverse events associated with acupuncture were reported.ConclusionAvailable evidence suggests that acupuncture is beneficial for relieving pain and ameliorating quality of life and health index in patients with RA; thereby, it should be available as an adjunctive nonpharmacological treatment in rehabilitation programmes.

Project description:BackgroundDespite significant cost differences, the comparative effect of combination treatments of disease modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) with and without biologic agents has rarely been examined. Thus we performed a network meta-analysis on the effect of combination therapies on progression of radiographic joint erosions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods and findingsThe following combination drug therapies compared versus single DMARD were investigated: Double DMARD: 2 DMARDs (methotrexate, sulfasalazine, leflunomide, injectable gold, cyclosporine, chloroquine, azathioprin, penicillamin) or 1 DMARD plus low dose glucocorticoid (LDGC); triple DMARD: 3 DMARDs or 2 DMARDs plus LDGC; biologic combination: 1 DMARD plus biologic agent (tumor necrosis factor α inhibitor (TNFi) or abatacept or tocilizumab or CD20 inhibitor (CD20i)). Randomized controlled trials were identified in a search of electronic archives of biomedical literature and included in a star-shaped network meta-analysis and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement protocol. Effects are reported as standardized mean differences (SMD). The effects of data from 39 trials published in the period 1989-2012 were as follows: Double DMARD: -0.32 SMD (CI: -0.42, -0.22); triple DMARD: -0.46 SMD (CI: -0.60, -0.31); 1 DMARD plus TNFi: -0.30 SMD (CI: -0.36, -0.25); 1 DMARD plus abatacept: -0.20 SMD (CI: -0.33, -0.07); 1 DMARD plus tocilizumab: -0.34 SMD (CI: -0.48, -0.20); 1 DMARD plus CD20i: -0.32 SMD (CI: -0.40, -0.24). The indirect comparisons showed similar effects between combination treatments apart from triple DMARD being significantly better than abatacept plus methotrexate (-0.26 SMD (CI: -0.45, -0.07)) and TNFi plus methotrexate (-0.16 SMD (CI: -0.31, -0.01)).ConclusionCombination treatment of a biologic agent with 1 DMARD is not superior to 2-3 DMARDs including or excluding LDGC in preventing structural joint damage. Future randomized studies of biologic agents should be compared versus a combination of DMARDs.