PloS one · 2024
Efficacy and safety of berberine plus 5-ASA for ulcerative colitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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 Jilei, Zhang Chenchen, Xu Yanchao, Yang Lili
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of berberine(BBR) plus 5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) for treating ulcerative colitis (UC).
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Sinomed, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, through January 2024 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered BBR conjunction in standard therapy(5-ASA) for to support the treatment of UC. The data were synthesized using a meta-analysis approach with RevMan 5.4.1. The primary endpoint was the clinical efficacy rate. In contrast, the secondary endpoints included the Baron score, disease activity index (DAI) score, symptom relief latency, inflammatory markers, immunological indicators, and adverse events.
RESULTS: In this analysis, 10 RCTs comprising 952 patients with UC were examined. BBR considerably improved the clinical efficacy rate (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.15, 1.30], P < 0.00001), attenuated the Baron score (SMD = -1.72, 95% CI [-2.30, -1.13], P < 0.00001) and reduced the DAI score (SMD = -2.93, 95% CI [-4.42, -1.43], P < 0.00001). Additionally, it ameliorated clinical symptoms (SMD = -2.74, 95% CI [-3.45, 2.02], P < 0.00001), diminished inflammatory responses (SMD = -1.59, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.04], P < 0.00001), and modulated immune reactions (SMD = 1.06,95% CI [0.24,1.87], P <0.00001). Nonetheless, the impact of BBR on reducing adverse reactions was not statistically significant (RR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.42, 1.33], P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: BBR demonstrates substantial efficacy in treating UC without causing severe adverse reactions and may serve as a viable complementary therapy. However, its clinical application warrants confirmation by additional high-quality, low-bias RCTs.
METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Sinomed, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang, and VIP, through January 2024 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that administered BBR conjunction in standard therapy(5-ASA) for to support the treatment of UC. The data were synthesized using a meta-analysis approach with RevMan 5.4.1. The primary endpoint was the clinical efficacy rate. In contrast, the secondary endpoints included the Baron score, disease activity index (DAI) score, symptom relief latency, inflammatory markers, immunological indicators, and adverse events.
RESULTS: In this analysis, 10 RCTs comprising 952 patients with UC were examined. BBR considerably improved the clinical efficacy rate (RR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.15, 1.30], P < 0.00001), attenuated the Baron score (SMD = -1.72, 95% CI [-2.30, -1.13], P < 0.00001) and reduced the DAI score (SMD = -2.93, 95% CI [-4.42, -1.43], P < 0.00001). Additionally, it ameliorated clinical symptoms (SMD = -2.74, 95% CI [-3.45, 2.02], P < 0.00001), diminished inflammatory responses (SMD = -1.59, 95% CI [-2.14, 1.04], P < 0.00001), and modulated immune reactions (SMD = 1.06,95% CI [0.24,1.87], P <0.00001). Nonetheless, the impact of BBR on reducing adverse reactions was not statistically significant (RR = 0.75, 95% CI [0.42, 1.33], P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: BBR demonstrates substantial efficacy in treating UC without causing severe adverse reactions and may serve as a viable complementary therapy. However, its clinical application warrants confirmation by additional high-quality, low-bias RCTs.