Yoga for Essential Hypertension: A Systematic Review

Background

Yoga is thought to be effective for health conditions. The article aims to assess the current clinical evidence of yoga for Essential hypertension (EH).

Strategy

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library were searched until June, 2013. We included randomized clinical trials testing yoga against conventional therapy, yoga versus no treatment, yoga combined with conventional therapy versus conventional therapy or conventional therapy combined with breath awareness. Study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, and data analyses were conducted according to the Cochrane standards.

Results

A total of 6 studies (involving 386 patients) were included. The methodological quality of the included trials was evaluated as generally low. A total of 6 RCTs met all the inclusion criteria. 4 of them compared yoga plus conventional therapy with conventional therapy. 1 RCT described yoga combined with conventional therapy versus conventional therapy combined with breath awareness. 2 RCT tested the effect of yoga versus conventional therapy alone. 1 RCT described yoga compared to no treatment. Only one trial reported adverse events without details, the safety of yoga is still uncertain.

Conclusions

There is some encouraging evidence of yoga for lowering SBP and DBP. However, due to low methodological quality of these identified trials, a definite conclusion about the efficacy and safety of yoga on EH cannot be drawn from this review. Therefore, further thorough investigation, large-scale, proper study designed, randomized trials of yoga for hypertension will be required to justify the effects reported here.     

Evaluation of Zhilong Huoxue Tongyu capsule in the treatment of acute cerebral infarction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundZhilong Huoxue Tongyu capsule (ZL) is a Chinese patent medicine and used for the treatment of acute cerebral infarction (ACI) and its clinical application has gradually been widely recognized in China. However, the effects of ZL for patients with ACI have never been systematically evaluated.PurposeA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the efficacy of ZL in ACI.Study designA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Materials and methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. The comprehensive literature search was accomplished in 6 electronic databases to find relevant randomized controlled trials from their inception until October 31, 2020. The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions was used for methodological quality and independent evaluation. Review Manager 5.3 was used to analyze all the data obtained. The Clinical Effective Rate (CER) was the primary outcome, and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Score (NIHSS), Barthel Index (BI), and Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) were the secondary outcomes.ResultsSeven clinical studies recruiting 571 eligible patients were included in this meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis suggested that compared with conventional treatment alone, ZL combined with conventional treatment significantly improved CER (RR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.12-1.29, p < 0.00001), decrease National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale Score (NIHSS) (MD = -2.60, 95% CI: -3.41–1.79, p < 0.00001), Barthel Index (BI) (MD = -9.75, 95% CI: 7.15-12.36, p < 0.00001) and Modified Rankin Scale (MRS) (MD = -0.57, 95% CI: -0.84–0.30, p < 0.00001). There were no reported adverse events in the studies. Most results were robust and the quality of evidence was from moderate to low.ConclusionZL combined with conventional treatment can improve the short-term outcomes of ACI patients, indicating ZL is a promising treatment choice for ACI and may be used as adjunctive treatment to the conventional treatment of ACI. However, due to the limitations of included clinical trials, high-quality clinical trials with longer follow-ups are still needed to further assess the effectiveness and safety of ZL for ACI patients.     

Chinese Herbal Medicine for Diabetic Peripheral Neuropathy: An Updated Meta-Analysis of 10 High-Quality Randomized Controlled Studies

Background

Diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN) is very common in people with diabetes. Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) therapy has been developed for DPN empirically over the years. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of CHMs for patients suffering from DPN.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHM on DPN. Six databases were searched up to November 2012. The primary outcome measures were the absolute values or changing of motor or sensory nerve conduction velocity (NCV), and the secondary outcome measurements were clinical symptoms improvements and adverse events. The methodological quality was assessed by Jadad scale and the twelve criteria recommended by the Cochrane Back Review Group.

Results

One hundred and sixty-three studies claimed RCTs. Ten studies with 653 individuals were further identified based on the Jadad score ≥3. These 10 studies were all of high methodological quality with a low risk of bias. Meta-analysis showed the effects of NCV favoring CHMs when compared with western conventional medicines (WCM) (P<0.05 or P<0.01). There is a significant difference in the total efficacy rate between the two groups (P<0.001). Adverse effects were reported in all of the ten included studies, and well tolerated in all patients with DPN.

Conclusion

Despite of the apparently positive findings and low risk of bias, it is premature to conclude the efficacy of CHMs for the treatment of DPN because of the high clinical heterogeneity and small sample sizes of the included studies. However, CHM therapy was safe for DPN. Further standardized preparation, large sample-size and rigorously designed RCTs are required.     

Acupuncture Therapy for Sudden Sensorineural Hearing Loss: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

ObjectiveAcupuncture has commonly been used in China, either alone or in combination with Western medicine, to treat sudden sensorineural hearing loss (SSHL). The purpose of this systematic review is to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture therapy for patients with SSHL.MethodsWe searched PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical literature service system (SinoMed) to collect randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for SSHL published before July 2014. A meta-analysis was conducted according to the Cochrane systematic review method using RevMan 5.2 software. The evidence level for each outcome was assessed using the GRADE methodology.ResultsTwelve trials involving 863 patients were included. A meta-analysis showed that the effect of manual acupuncture combined with Western medicine comprehensive treatment (WMCT) was better than WMCT alone (RR 1.33, 95%CI 1.19–1.49) and the same as the effect of electroacupuncture combined with WMCT (RR 1.33, 95%CI 1.19–1.50). One study showed a better effect of electroacupuncture than of WMCT (RR 1.34, 95%CI 1.24–1.45). For mean changes in hearing over all frequencies, the meta-analysis showed a better effect with the combination of acupuncture and WMCT than with WMCT alone (MD 10.85, 95%CI 6.84–14.86). However, the evidence levels for these interventions were low or very low due to a high risk of bias and small sample sizes in the included studies.ConclusionThere was not sufficient evidence showing that acupuncture therapy alone was beneficial for treating SSHL. However, interventions combining acupuncture with WMCT had more efficacious results in the treatment of SSHL than WMCT alone. Electroacupuncture alone might be a viable alternative treatment besides WMCT for SSHL. However, given that there were fewer eligible RCTs and limitations in the included trials, such as methodological drawbacks and small sample sizes, large-scale RCTs are required to confirm the current findings regarding acupuncture therapy for SSHL.     

Ginseng for Health Care: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials in Korean Literature

Objective

This systematic review was performed to summarise randomised clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy and safety of ginseng in the Korean literature.

Method

The study involved systematic searches conducted in eight Korean Medical databases. The methodological quality of all of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We included all RCTs on any type of ginseng compared to placebo, active treatment or no treatment in healthy individuals or patients regardless of conditions.

Results

In total, 1415 potentially relevant studies were identified, and 30 randomised clinical trials were included. Nine RCTs assessed the effects of ginseng on exercise capacity, cognitive performance, somatic symptoms, quality of life, and sleeping in healthy persons. Six RCTs tested ginseng compared with placebo for erectile dysfunction, while another four studies evaluated the effects of ginseng against no treatment for gastric and colon cancer. Two RCTs compared the effect of red ginseng on diabetes mellitus with no treatment or placebo, and the other nine RCTs assessed the effects of ginseng compared with placebo or no treatment on various conditions. The methodological caveats of the included trials make their contribution to the current clinical evidence of ginseng somewhat limited. However, the 20 newly added trials (66.7% of the 30 trials) may provide useful information for future trials. Ginseng appears to be generally safe, and no serious adverse effects have been reported.

Conclusions

The clinical effects of ginseng have been tested in a wide range of conditions in Korea. Although the quality of RCTs published in the Korean literature was generally poor, this review is useful for researchers to access studies that were originally published in languages that they would otherwise be unable to read and due to the paucity of evidence on this subject.     

The safety and efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell therapy in diabetic lower extremity vascular disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review

Background aimsSeveral studies have shown the efficacy of mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) therapy for lower extremity vascular disease (LEVD) in diabetic patients, but the results are not consistent. Therefore, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in diabetic patients with LEVD.MethodsEight available databases were searched in both English and Chinese to identify RCTs comparing MSC therapy-based conventional treatment with conventional treatment alone in diabetic patients with LEVD. Three investigators independently screened the literature, extracted the data and assessed the risk bias. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 and Stata 14.0.ResultsA total of 10 studies involving 453 patients were included. Compared with conventional treatment only, patients receiving MSC therapy-based conventional treatment had a higher ulcer healing rate, greater number of reduced ulcers and shorter complete healing time. MSC therapy also increased ankle–brachial index and transcutaneous oxygen pressure. In addition, four of the included studies showed that MSC therapy significantly improved the number of new collateral vessels. Moreover, no more adverse events were recorded in the MSC group.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis suggests that MSC therapy promotes ulcer healing in diabetic LEVD patients with ulcers, improves blood supply and has a favorable safety profile. More large and well-designed RCTs with long-term follow-up are still needed to explore the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in diabetic patients with LEVD.     

Systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of existing TNF blocking agents in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

Background and Objectives

Five-tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-blockers (infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol and golimumab) are available for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Only few clinical trials compare one TNF-blocker to another. Hence, a systematic review is required to indirectly compare the substances. The aim of our study is to estimate the efficacy and the safety of TNF-blockers in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and indirectly compare all five currently available blockers by combining the results from included randomized clinical trials (RCT).

Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using databases including: MEDLINE, SCOPUS (including EMBASE), Cochrane library and electronic search alerts. Only articles reporting double-blind RCTs of TNF-blockers vs. placebo, with or without concomitant methotrexate (MTX), in treatment of RA were selected. Data collected were information of patients, interventions, controls, outcomes, study methods and eventual sources of bias.

Results

Forty-one articles reporting on 26 RCTs were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Five RCTs studied infliximab, seven etanercept, eight adalimumab, three golimumab and three certolizumab. TNF-blockers were more efficacious than placebo at all time points but were comparable to MTX. TNF-blocker and MTX combination was superior to either MTX or TNF-blocker alone. Increasing doses did not improve the efficacy. TNF-blockers were relatively safe compared to either MTX or placebo.

Conclusions

No single substance clearly rose above others in efficacy, but the results of the safety analyses suggest that etanercept might be the safest alternative. Interestingly, MTX performs nearly identically considering both efficacy and safety aspects with a margin of costs.     

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation

ObjectiveTo evaluate the clinical, methodological, and reporting aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the treatment of asthma and to compare those published by the Cochrane Collaboration with those published in paper based journals.DesignAnalysis of studies identified from Medline, CINAHL, HealthSTAR, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, personal collections, and reference lists.StudiesArticles describing a systematic review or a meta-analysis of the treatment of asthma that were published as a full report, in any language or format, in a peer reviewed journal or the Cochrane Library.Results50 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. More than half were published in the past two years. Twelve reviews were published in the Cochrane Library and 38 were published in 22 peer reviewed journals. Forced expiratory volume in one second was the most frequently used outcome, but few reviews evaluated the effect of treatment on costs or patient preferences. Forty reviews were judged to have serious or extensive flaws. All six reviews associated with industry were in this group. Seven of the 10 most rigorous reviews were published in the Cochrane Library.ConclusionsMost reviews published in peer reviewed journals or funded by industry have serious methodological flaws that limit their value to guide decisions. Cochrane reviews are more rigorous and better reported than those published in peer reviewed journals.     

Saffron (Crocus sativus L.) and health outcomes: a meta-research review of meta-analyses and an evidence mapping study

BackgroundAlthough a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) have been published, no study has comprehensively summarized the clinical evidence from meta-analyses, or assessed the reporting or methodological quality of these reviews.PurposeThe present meta-research study was designed to fill the gaps in knowledge to inform future studies and allow enhanced clinical decision-making on saffron.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from inception to April 3 rd, 2021, for meta-analyses of clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of saffron. PRISMA 2009 and AMSTAR-2 were employed to assess the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses identified in the search, respectively. The present study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020220274.ResultsNineteen eligible systematic reviews with meta-analyses published in English were identified from 235 records. These meta-analyses were published in 12 peer-reviewed journals from 2013 to 2021. The heterogeneous results indicated that saffron significantly reduced fasting blood glucose, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, concentrations of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and improved symptoms of depression, cognitive function and sexual dysfunction compared with controls (mainly placebos). Common side effects of saffron consumption included nausea, dry mouth, poor appetite, and headache, but no serious adverse reactions were reported. Primary analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed that the reporting and methodological quality of reviews included in the study were highly correlated (p < 0.001). The quality of meta-analyses of saffron requires improvement by including a structured abstract, a prospective protocol and registration, explanation of the study designs within each study that is reviewed, the searches, risk of bias assessment, literature selection, and reporting of funding sources.ConclusionThe available evidence indicates that saffron is a safe plant for administration as a medicine and can improve diverse clinical outcomes, but the scientific quality of the published systematic reviews needs to be improved. Moreover, the clinical effects of saffron need to be confirmed through high-quality randomized trials in multiple countries with large sample sizes.     

Continuous Subcutaneous Infusion of Insulin Lispro in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus

ObjectiveTo provide a comprehensive review of insulin lispro administered by continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) in children and adolescents.MethodsWe performed PubMed literature searches to identify clinical studies of insulin lispro administered via CSII within pediatric and adolescent populations.ResultsTwenty-six studies involving 2521 pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus met inclusion criteria. Of these, 10 were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 6 of which compared insulin lispro CSII with multiple daily injection (MDI) therapy. We identified 7 additional prospective, nonrandomized studies and 9 retrospective studies. Within the RCTs, endpoint hemoglobin A_1c levels ranged from 6.3% to 8.5% for insulin lispro CSII therapy and from 6.2% to 8.7% for those trials with MDI comparator arms. In those trials that compared insulin lispro CSII with MDI, the endpoint hemoglobin A_1c achieved with insulin lispro was similar or improved compared with observations in the MDI treatment arm. In the RCTs, severe hypoglycemia rates of 0.1 to 0.3 episodes/patient per year were reported for insulin lispro CSII therapy; those trials with MDI comparator arms reported relatively similar severe hypoglycemia rates (0.1 to 0.5 episodes/patient per year). Events of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) were rare. Where reported, insulin lispro CSII and MDI therapy demonstrated a similar occurrence of DKA and incidence of severe hypoglycemia. Prospective and retrospective studies demonstrated results similar to the RCT findings.ConclusionsIn 26 studies of more than 2500 pediatric and adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes, with more than 1000 patients specifically receiving insulin lispro CSII, insulin lispro CSII therapy consistently demonstrated similar or improved efficacy and safety vs studied comparators. (Endocr Pract. 2012;18:418-424)     

Garlic for hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundIn the past decade, garlic has become one of the most popular complementary therapies for blood pressure (BP) control used by hypertensive patients. Numerous clinical studies have focused on the BP-lowering effect of garlic, but results have been inconsistent. Overall, there is a dearth of information available to guide the clinical community on the efficacy of garlic in hypertensive patients.AimTo systematically review the medical literature to investigate the current evidence of garlic for the treatment of hypertension.MethodsPubMed, the Cochrane Library and EMBASE were searched for appropriate articles from their respective inceptions until August 2014. Randomized, placebo-controlled trials comparing garlic vs. a placebo in patients with hypertension were considered. Papers were independently reviewed by two reviewers and were analyzed using Cochrane software Revman 5.2.ResultsA total of seven randomized, placebo-controlled trials were identified. Compared with the placebo, this meta-analysis revealed a significant lowering effect of garlic on both systolic BP (WMD: −6.71 mmHg; 95% CI: −12.44 to −0.99; P = 0.02) and diastolic BP (WMD: −4.79 mmHg; 95% CI: −6.60 to −2.99; P < 0.00001). No serious adverse events were reported in any of the trials.ConclusionThe present review suggests that garlic is an effective and safe approach for hypertension. However, more rigorously designed randomized controlled trials focusing on primary endpoints with long-term follow-up are still warranted before garlic can be recommended to treat hypertensive patients.     

Kanglaite injection plus platinum-based chemotherapy for stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer: A meta-analysis of 27 RCTs

BackgroundKanglaite injection (KLT) is a broad-spectrum anti-tumor drug, which is extracted from the seeds of the Chinese medicinal herb Coix lacryma-jobi, and has been widely used for the treatment of advanced lung cancer.PurposeTo evaluate the combined effects of Kanglaite injection plus platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) on patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Study designA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Materials and methodsTwelve databases were searched from their inceptions until July 05, 2019. All the RCTs comparing the efficacy and safety of Kanglaite injection plus PBC versus PBC alone were selected. Analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3, Comprehensive Meta-Analysis 3.0 and Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). Disease control rate (DCR) was defined as the primary endpoint, objective response rate (ORR), survival rate, quality of life (QOL), cellular immunity function, and toxicities were defined as the secondary endpoints.ResultsTwenty-seven RCTs recruiting 2,243 patients with stage III/IV NSCLC were included. The results showed that, compared with PBC alone, Kanglaite injection plus PBC improved DCR (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.15–1.26, p < 0.00001), ORR (RR = 1.45, 95% CI 1.31–1.60, p < 0.00001), 1-year survival rate (RR = 1.20, 95% CI 1.02–1.43, p = 0.03), QOL (RR = 1.32, 95% CI 1.25–1.40, p < 0.00001), CD4⁺ T cells (WMD = 4.86, 95% CI 4.00–5.73, p < 0.00001), CD4⁺/CD8⁺ ratio (WMD = 0.19, 95% CI 0.07–0.31, p < 0.002), and reduced severe toxicities by 59% (RR = 0.41, 95% CI 0.33–0.51, p < 0.00001). Most results were robust and the quality of evidence was from moderate to low.ConclusionsKanglaite injection in combination with PBC showed significantly higher efficacy than PBC alone in the treatment of stage III/IV NSCLC. Moreover, the combination therapy can improve cellular immunity and attenuate the severe toxicities caused by chemotherapy. However, high-quality RCTs are warranted to further assess the effects of the combined therapy.     

The effectiveness and efficacy of Rhodiola rosea L.: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

Objective

To critically assess the current evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for or against the effectiveness or efficacy of Rhodiola rosea.

Data sources

Systematic literature searches were performed in six electronic databases: AMED (1985-July 2009), CINAHL (1982-July 2009), The Cochrane Library (search in July 2009), EMBASE (1974-July 2009), MEDLINE (1950-July 2009) and Web of Science (searched in July 2009). No language restrictions were imposed. Reference lists of all retrieved articles were searched, and experts and manufacturers were contacted for unpublished RCT.

Review methods

RCTs testing the efficacy or effectiveness of mono-preparations of R. rosea as sole treatment administered orally against a control intervention in any human individual suffering from any condition or healthy human volunteers were included. Studies were selected, data extracted, and quality assessed by two independent reviewers.

Results

Eleven RCTs met the inclusion criteria; all were placebo-controlled. Six trials investigated the effects of R. rosea on physical performance, four on mental performance, and two in patients diagnosed with mental health condition. The methodological quality of most trials was moderate or good. Only few mild adverse events were reported.

Conclusion

R. rosea may have beneficial effects on physical performance, mental performance, and certain mental health conditions. There is, however, a lack of independent replications of the single different studies. Five of the 10 RCTs reached more than three points on the Jadad score (i.e., good quality). More research seems warranted.     

Efficacy and safety of transcatheter arterial chemoembolization combined with ginsenosides in hepatocellular carcinoma treatment

BackgroundTranscatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) is a standard therapy to treat hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), but often limited for its complications. Ginsenosides, including total ginsenosides (GS), Rg3, Rh2 and CK, have been clinically used as adjuvants of TACE in HCC therapy. However, partial clinical observations concerning the efficacy and safety of the combinational treatment were contradictory.PurposeTo investigate the efficacy and safety of TACE and ginsenosides combination for HCC therapy.MethodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding TACE and ginsenosides for HCC up to May 2021 were screened from six databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese VIP Information and Web of Science). The outcomes of tumor response, adverse reactions (ADRs), quality of life (QOL), survival rates (OS) and liver function were extracted and evaluated by meta-analysis, respectively.ResultsA total of 18 RCTs with 1308 HCC patients were enrolled, and most of the eligible studies had unclear bias risk. Compared with TACE, combining ginsenosides improved objective response rate [ORR, risk ratio (RR) 1.39, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.20∼1.61], disease control rate (DCR, RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12∼1.30), QOL (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.25∼1.90), one- (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.16∼1.62) and two- (RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06∼1.95) year OS, and A level of Child-pugh, as well as reduced the risks of nausea and vomiting, pyrexia, ache, hyperbilirubinemia, anorexia, fatigue, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia and myelosuppression. Subgroup analyses showed that both short- and long- treatment durations of ginsenosides enhanced the A level of Child-pugh, and reduced nausea and vomiting, ache and hyperbilirubinemia. Besides, combining Rg3 benefited DCR, ORR and QOL, and alleviated nausea and vomiting, hyperbilirubinemia, leukopenia, myelosuppression, thrombocytopenia and α-fetoprotein, while combining GS alleviated nausea and vomiting, ache and hyperbilirubinemia, combining Rh2 alleviated thrombocytopenia, and combining CK alleviated nausea and vomiting, pyrexia, ache and leukopenia, respectively.ConclusionThe results suggested that combining ginsenosides could continuously benefit the efficacy and safety of TACE in HCC treatment, and Rg3 is the prior selection during the combination.     

The Efficacy and Safety of Leflunomide for the Treatment of Lupus Nephritis in Chinese Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective

To evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of leflunomide as a new immunosuppressive medicine in lupus nephritis (LN) through a meta-analysis.

Methods

A systematic review evaluating the efficacy and safety of leflunomide compared with cyclophosphamide in adult patients with LN was performed. Data from relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) performed before December 2014 was collected from several databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI and CBM). No language restrictions were applied. Efficacy outcomes included overall remission, SLE Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) score, 24-hour proteinuria and serum creatinine. Safety data were analyzed. The effects of treatment on these outcomes were summarized as relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and mean differences were pooled using a fixed or random effects model.

Results

Eleven RCTs with Jadad score of 3 or greater were identified and included a total of 254 patients. Cyclophosphamide was served as the control drug in all trials. The SLEDAI score, urine protein level and serum creatinine decreased significantly following leflunomide treatment (P<0.05). Leflunomide was superior to cyclophosphamide in achieving complete and total remission, but no difference in SLEDAI score was found between these two treatments (P>0.05). Additionally, patients receiving leflunomide treatment showed favorable renal function profiles, especially regarding the 24-hour proteinuria (mean difference: -0.58, 95%CI: -0.78~-0.37, P<0.01) and serum creatinine (mean difference: -0.20, 95%CI: -0.39~-0.01, P<0.05). In the safety comparison, leflunomide was safer than cyclophosphamide regarding adverse drug reactions (ADRs), including liver damage (RR = 0.53, 95%CI: 0.33~0.87, P<0.05), alopecia (RR = 0.38, 95%CI: 0.17~0.85, P<0.05), leukopenia (RR = 0.25, 95%CI: 0.08~0.77, P<0.05) and infection (RR = 0.54, 95%CI: 0.32~0.92, P<0.05), without increased risk of gastrointestinal reaction, rash or herpes zoster infection.

Conclusions

Leflunomide is a promising therapy for LN treatment, primarily because of the comparable efficacy and favorable safety profile determined by this meta-analysis of RCTs. Larger RCTs with longer duration of observation are necessary to provide strong evidence of the efficacy and safety of leflunomide in LN patients.     

Cluster Subcutaneous Allergen Specific Immunotherapy for the Treatment of Allergic Rhinitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Although allergen specific immunotherapy (SIT) represents the only immune- modifying and curative option available for patients with allergic rhinitis (AR), the optimal schedule for specific subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) is still unknown. The objective of this study is to systematically assess the efficacy and safety of cluster SCIT for patients with AR.

Methods

By searching PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane clinical trials database from 1980 through May 10th, 2013, we collected and analyzed the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cluster SCIT to assess its efficacy and safety.

Results

Eight trials involving 567 participants were included in this systematic review. Our meta-analysis showed that cluster SCIT have similar effect in reduction of both rhinitis symptoms and the requirement for anti-allergic medication compared with conventional SCIT, but when comparing cluster SCIT with placebo, no statistic significance were found in reduction of symptom scores or medication scores. Some caution is required in this interpretation as there was significant heterogeneity between studies. Data relating to Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) in 3 included studies were analyzed, which consistently point to the efficacy of cluster SCIT in improving quality of life compared to placebo. To assess the safety of cluster SCIT, meta-analysis showed that no differences existed in the incidence of either local adverse reaction or systemic adverse reaction between the cluster group and control group.

Conclusion

Based on the current limited evidence, we still could not conclude affirmatively that cluster SCIT was a safe and efficacious option for the treatment of AR patients. Further large-scale, well-designed RCTs on this topic are still needed.     

Huangqi injection (a traditional Chinese patent medicine) for chronic heart failure: a systematic review

Background

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a global public health problem. Therefore, novel and effective drugs that show few side-effects are needed. Early literature studies indicated that Huangqi injection is one of the most commonly used traditional Chinese patent medicines for CHF in China. As a large number of clinical studies has been carried out and published, it is essential to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Huangqi injection. Therefore, we carried out this systematic review under the support of the framework of the Joint Sino-Italian Laboratory (JoSIL).

Objectives

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Huangqi injection for CHF according to the available scientific knowledge.

Methods

An extensive search including PubMed, EMBASE, CBM, the Cochrane Library and Chinese literature databases was performed up to July 2008. Clinical trials regarding Huangqi injection for the treatment of CHF were searched for, irrespective of languages. The quality of each trial was assessed according to the Cochrane Reviewers'' Handbook 5.0, and RevMan 5.0 provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and STATA 9.2 were used for data analysis.

Results

After selection of 1,205 articles, 62 RCTs and quasi-RCTs conducted in China and published in Chinese journals were included in the review. The methodological quality of the trials was low. In most trials inclusion and exclusion criteria were not specified. Furthermore, only one study evaluated the outcomes for drug efficacy after an adequate period of time. For these reasons and because of the different baseline characteristics we did not conduct a meta-analysis.

Conclusions

Although available studies are not adequate to draw a conclusion on the efficacy and safety of Huangqi injection (a traditional Chinese patent medicine), we hope that our work could provide useful experience on further studies on Huangqi injections. The overall level of TCM clinical research needs to be improved so that the efficacy of TCM can be evaluated by the international community and possibly some TCM can enter into the international market.     

Comparison of Clinical Efficacy and Safety between Indacaterol and Tiotropium in COPD: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Two once-daily inhaled bronchodilators, indacaterol and tiotropium, are widely used as first-line therapy in stable COPD patients. This study was performed to compare the clinical efficacy and safety between indacaterol and tiotropium in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to identify all published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was trough forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV₁) at week 12. Four RCTs were eligible for inclusion (three RCTs with moderate-to-severe COPD patients and one RCT with only severe COPD patients). Trough FEV₁ at weeks 12 and 26 were not significantly different between indacaterol and tiotropium by the standardized mean difference with 0.014 (95% CI, -0.036, 0.063, I²= 23.5%) and with 0.037 (95% CI, -0.059 to 0.133, I²= 0%) along with differences in means of 0.003L and 0.014L, respectively. Indacaterol and tiotropium also showed similar St. George`s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total scores and percentages of patients with SGRQ improvement (≥ 4 units) at week 26. The incidences of nasopharyngitis, serious cardiovascular events, and serious adverse events were not different between indacaterol and tiotropium, while those of cough (OR = 1.68, P < 0.001, and RR = 1.63) and COPD worsening (OR = 1.18, P = 0.003, and RR = 1.12) were higher for indacaterol than tiotropium. However, when one study with only severe COPD patients was removed from the meta-analysis, the difference in the incidence of COPD worsening between indacaterol and tiotropium became non-significant (OR = 1.13, P = 0.204, and RR = 1.09). The clinical efficacy and serious adverse events between indacaterol and tiotropium were equivocal in patients with moderate-to-severe COPD. Cough is a common complaint associated with indacaterol, and COPD worsening needs to be carefully monitored in severe COPD patients when treated with indacaterol.     

Evidence-Based Medicine,Clinical Practice Guidelines,and Common Sense in the Management of Osteoporosis

ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), and clinical judgment in the management of osteoporosis.MethodsA review was conducted of the English-language literature on the origins and applications of RCTs, CPGs, evidence-based medicine, and clinical judgment in the management of osteoporosis.ResultsEvidence-based medicine is use of the currently available best evidence in making clinical decisions for individual patients. CPGs are recommendations for making clinical decisions based on research evidence, sometimes with consideration of expert opinion, health care policy, and costs of care. The highest levels of medical evidence are usually thought to be RCTs and meta-analyses of high-quality RCTs. Although it is desirable and appropriate for clinicians to consider research evidence from RCTs and recommendations presented in CPGs in making clinical decisions, other factors—such as patient preference, comorbidities, affordability, and availability of care—are important for the actual implementation of evidence-based medicine.ConclusionDecisions about who to treat, which drug to use, how best to monitor, and how long to treat require clinical skills in addition to knowledge of medical research. The necessity of integrating common sense and clinical judgment is highlighted by the fact that many patients treated for osteoporosis in clinical practice would not qualify for participation in the pivotal clinical trials that demonstrated efficacy and safety of the drugs used to treat them. (Endocr Pract. 2009;15:573-579)