Dataset Information

The Efficacy and Safety of Chinese Herbal Medicine in the Treatment of Knee Osteoarthritis: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 56 Randomized Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to investigate the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis (KOA).

Methods

An electronic search was conducted in eight databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Chinese VIP Database, and Wanfang Database) from inception until December 2019. The risk of bias assessment of the included RCTs was evaluated by Cochrane collaboration's tool. The inclusion criteria were RCTs that investigated the efficacy and safety of CHM in the treatment of KOA, with no restrictions on publication status or language. The exclusion criteria included nonrandomized or quasi-RCTs, no clear KOA diagnostic approach, combined Chinese medicinal herbs with other traditional Chinese medicine treatment modalities, and published using repeated data and missing data. We computed the relative risk (RR) and the standard mean difference (SMD) for dichotomous outcomes and continuous outcomes, respectively. When heterogeneity was detected or there was significant statistical heterogeneity (P < 0.05 or I ² > 50%), a random-effects model was employed, followed by further subgroup analysis and metaregression estimations to ascertain the origins of heterogeneity. Otherwise, we used a fixed-effects model (P ≥ 0.05 or I ² ≤ 50%). The primary outcome measures were visual analog score (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), Lysholm score, and Lequesne index. Secondary outcome measures were the total clinical effective rate and adverse events. The meta-analysis was performed using the Stata 14.0 software.

Results

A total of 56 RCTs comprising 5350 patients met the inclusion criteria. This meta-analysis showed that application of CHM as adjuvant therapy or monotherapy for KOA can significantly decrease VAS, WOMAC, and the Lequesne index and improve the Lysholm score as well as the total effective rate. In addition, this treatment has fewer adverse effects, suggesting that CHM is generally safe and well tolerated among patients with KOA.

Conclusion

Our study offers supportive evidence that CHM, either adjuvant therapy or monotherapy, reduces the VAS, WOMAC, and Lequesne index and improves the Lysholm score and overall effective rate in patients with KOA. Additionally, CHM was well tolerated and safe in KOA patients. We found frequently used CHMs that might contribute to the formulation of a herbal formula that could be considered for further clinical use. However, given the heterogeneity and limited sample size in this study, larger multicenter and high-quality RCTs are needed to validate the benefits of CHM in the treatment of KOA.

SUBMITTER: Lin Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8759838 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) has attracted widespread attention because of its unknown pathogenesis, rapid progression, and life-threatening and incurable characteristics. A series of complementary therapies, including Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), is available for use in the clinic and has been the focus of much research. However, it is unclear as to whether supplementary CHM relieves disease symptoms or extends life span; thus, we conducted this updated meta-analysis to validate the efficacy and safety of this practice. Methods We searched six electronic databases for randomized controlled trials involving CHM and patients with ALS that were published up to April 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, assessed the risk of bias for each trial, and then extracted data. The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and a pooled data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3. Results A total of 14 trials led to the publication of 15 articles featuring 1,141 participants during the study period; the articles were included in the systematic review. In terms of increasing ALS functional rating scale (ALSFRS) scores, CHM was superior to the placebo after 3 months of treatment [mean difference (MD):0.7; 95% CI:0.43 to 0.98; P < 0.01] and to riluzole after 4 weeks of treatment (MD: 2.87; 95% CI: 0.81 to 4.93; P < 0.05), and it was superior to conventional medicine (CM) alone when used as an add-on therapy after 8 weeks of treatment (MD: 3.5; 95% CI: 0.51 to 6.49; P < 0.05). The change in the modified Norris score (m-Norris) from baseline to the end of more than 3 months of treatment was significantly different when compared between the CHM plus CM group and the CM alone group (MD: 2.09; 95% CI: 0.62 to 3.55; P < 0.01). In addition, CHM had a significantly better effect on increase in clinical effective rate (RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.23 to 1.92; P < 0.01) and improvement in forced vital capacity (MD: 7.26; 95% CI: 2.92 to 11.6; P < 0.01). However, there was no significant difference between the CHM therapy and CM in terms of improving life quality (MD: 5.13; 95% CI: −7.04 to 17.31; P = 0.41) and decreasing mortality (RR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.04 to 4.21; P = 0.46). Conclusion The analysis suggested that the short-term adjunct use of CHM could improve the ALSFRS score and clinical effect with a good safety profile when compared with the placebo or riluzole alone. However, future research should be centered on the long-term efficacy of patient-oriented outcomes. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=323047, identifier: CRD42022323047.

Project description:Purpose: To conduct a real-world evaluation of the efficacy and safety of combined Chinese and Western medicine in treating knee osteoarthritis (KOA). Methods: A multicenter, prospective cohort study design was employed, enrolling 450 KOA patients (Kellgren-Lawrence score of 3 or less). The patients were divided into a Western medicine treatment group (WM group) and a combined Western and traditional Chinese medicine treatment group (WM-CM group). A 6-week treatment plan was administered, and follow-up visits occurred at 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 6 weeks after initiating treatment. The primary outcome indicator was the total Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) score after 6 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcome indicators included WOMAC subscales for pain, stiffness, and joint function, visual analogue scale (VAS) score, physical component summary (PCS), mental component summary (MCS), and clinical effectiveness. The incidence of drug-related adverse events was used as a safety evaluation indicator. Results: A total of 419 patients were included in the final analysis: 98 in the WM group and 321 in the WM-CM group. The baseline characteristics of the two groups were comparable, except for the incidence of stiffness symptoms and stiffness scores. After 6 weeks of treatment, the WM-CM group exhibited superior results to the WM group in improving the total WOMAC score (24.71 ± 1.38 vs. 16.36 ± 0.62, p < 0.001). The WM-CM group also outperformed the WM group in WOMAC pain and joint function scores, VAS score, PCS score, MCS score, and clinical effectiveness (p < 0.05), which was consistent with the findings of the main evaluation index. Subgroup analysis indicated that the combined Chinese and Western medicine treatment showed more pronounced benefits in patients under 65 years of age and in those with a Kellgren-Lawrence (K-L) classification of 0-I. Throughout the study, no adverse effects were observed in either group. Conclusion: The combination of Chinese and Western medicine demonstrated superiority over Western medicine alone in relieving knee pain symptoms, improving knee function, and enhancing the quality of life for KOA patients with a K-L score of 3 or less. Moreover, the treatment exhibited a good safety profile. Clinical Trial Registration: (https://www.chictr.org.cn/), identifier (ChiCTR1900027175).

Project description:Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) are a significant health burden with an ever-increasing prevalence. They remain the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The use of medicinal herbs continues to be an alternative treatment approach for several diseases including CVDs. Currently, there is an unprecedented drive for the use of herbal preparations in modern medicinal systems. This drive is powered by several aspects, prime among which are their cost-effective therapeutic promise compared to standard modern therapies and the general belief that they are safe. Nonetheless, the claimed safety of herbal preparations yet remains to be properly tested. Consequently, public awareness should be raised regarding medicinal herbs safety, toxicity, potentially life-threatening adverse effects, and possible herb-drug interactions. Over the years, laboratory data have shown that medicinal herbs may have therapeutic value in CVDs as they can interfere with several CVD risk factors. Accordingly, there have been many attempts to move studies on medicinal herbs from the bench to the bedside, in order to effectively employ herbs in CVD treatments. In this review, we introduce CVDs and their risk factors. Then we overview the use of herbs for disease treatment in general and CVDs in particular. Further, data on the ethnopharmacological therapeutic potentials and medicinal properties against CVDs of four widely used plants, namely Ginseng, Ginkgo biloba, Ganoderma lucidum, and Gynostemma pentaphyllum, are gathered and reviewed. In particular, the employment of these four plants in the context of CVDs, such as myocardial infarction, hypertension, peripheral vascular diseases, coronary heart disease, cardiomyopathies, and dyslipidemias has been reviewed, analyzed, and critically discussed. We also endeavor to document the recent studies aimed to dissect the cellular and molecular cardio-protective mechanisms of the four plants, using recently reported in vitro and in vivo studies. Finally, we reviewed and reported the results of the recent clinical trials that have been conducted using these four medicinal herbs with special emphasis on their efficacy, safety, and toxicity.