Annals of palliative medicine · 2021
Efficacy of Chinese herbal prescriptions containing Ejiao or Velvet antler for management of uterine fibroids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Qinglin, Zhang Lizhuo, Qian Xiaoling, Ma Yelin, Yang Weijia, Yang Minchun, Ye Yijing
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of the controversial Chinese herbal prescriptions containing Ejiao or Velvet antler (VA) in the treatment of uterine fibroids.
METHODS: We searched 4 famous Chinese databases, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, PubMed, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, Embase, and J-STAGE up to July 2019. We included all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared Chinese herbal prescriptions containing Ejiao or VA (E/VA) with placebo, pharmaceutical intervention, surgery, or other traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) for uterine fibroids and assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The software Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 9 RCTs involving 844 patients were identified. Meta-analyses demonstrated that TCM (E/VA) plus mifepristone reduced the volume of uterine fibroids to a greater degree than mifepristone alone [standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.59, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.85, P<0.00001, I2=50%]; TCM (E/VA) did not enlarge the volume of fibroids when menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) significantly increased the volume (SMD: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.38, P<0.00001, I2=0. The uterine volume change difference was larger via combination therapy of TCM (E/VA) and mifepristone than that of mifepristone (SMD: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.49, P=0.005, I2=0%). The TCM (E/VA) group of had an advantage over the control group in the improvement of fibroid-related symptoms [relative risk (RR): 1.24, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.35, P<0.00001, I2=0%]. It was found that TCM (E/VA) plus mifepristone could lower estradiol (E2) levels to a greater degree than mifepristone alone (SMD: 1.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 2.83, P=0.008, I2=97%), as well as progesterone (P) level (SMD: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.04, P<0.00001, I2=43%) in non-menopausal women. A total of 5 studies reported adverse events (AEs), the TCM (E/VA) group was potentially safer than the control group, with lower incidence of AEs (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.40, P<0.00001, I2=25.8%).
DISCUSSION: TCM prescriptions containing E/VA seemed superior to the control group in shrinking the volume of uterine fibroids and uterus, improving related symptoms, and reducing non-menopausal women's E2 and P levels, with lower incidence of AEs.
METHODS: We searched 4 famous Chinese databases, the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, PubMed, Cochrane Central, Google Scholar, Embase, and J-STAGE up to July 2019. We included all eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared Chinese herbal prescriptions containing Ejiao or VA (E/VA) with placebo, pharmaceutical intervention, surgery, or other traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) for uterine fibroids and assessed the risk of bias according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. The software Review Manager (RevMan) 5.1 was used for data analysis.
RESULTS: A total of 9 RCTs involving 844 patients were identified. Meta-analyses demonstrated that TCM (E/VA) plus mifepristone reduced the volume of uterine fibroids to a greater degree than mifepristone alone [standardized mean difference (SMD): 0.59, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.85, P<0.00001, I2=50%]; TCM (E/VA) did not enlarge the volume of fibroids when menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) significantly increased the volume (SMD: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.38, P<0.00001, I2=0. The uterine volume change difference was larger via combination therapy of TCM (E/VA) and mifepristone than that of mifepristone (SMD: 0.29, 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.49, P=0.005, I2=0%). The TCM (E/VA) group of had an advantage over the control group in the improvement of fibroid-related symptoms [relative risk (RR): 1.24, 95% CI: 1.15 to 1.35, P<0.00001, I2=0%]. It was found that TCM (E/VA) plus mifepristone could lower estradiol (E2) levels to a greater degree than mifepristone alone (SMD: 1.63, 95% CI: 0.42 to 2.83, P=0.008, I2=97%), as well as progesterone (P) level (SMD: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.55 to 1.04, P<0.00001, I2=43%) in non-menopausal women. A total of 5 studies reported adverse events (AEs), the TCM (E/VA) group was potentially safer than the control group, with lower incidence of AEs (RR: 0.24, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.40, P<0.00001, I2=25.8%).
DISCUSSION: TCM prescriptions containing E/VA seemed superior to the control group in shrinking the volume of uterine fibroids and uterus, improving related symptoms, and reducing non-menopausal women's E2 and P levels, with lower incidence of AEs.