Search

Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic inflammatory disease with an increasing incidence in the world. Qingre-Chushi therapies (QC) can alleviate clinical symptoms. Therefore, a network meta-analysis was conducted to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of QC in the treatment of active UC patients. Methods: 7 databases were screened and relevant randomized controlled trials were selected. The tools of Cochrane Handbook and the GRADE system were conducted to assess the quality of outcomes. Pooled risk ratio or standard mean difference was calculated with 95% credible interval for outcomes measurement using the random-effects model. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was performed to rank the treatments. The larger SUCRA scores, the more effective interventions. Results: A total of 3560 articles were identified and 21 studies including 1829 participants were included for further analysis. Totally, 9 therapies regimens were compared: oral mesalazine, mesalazine enema, mesalazine suppository, oral mesalazine + mesalazine enema, oral QC, oral QC + oral mesalazine, QC enema, oral QC + QC enema, and oral mesalazine + QC enema. Based on the SUCRA plot, oral QC + oral mesalazine was the best treatment in inducing clinical response; oral QC + QC enema had the best efficacy in the improvement of Mayo scores and alleviating abdominal pain; oral mesalazine + mesalazine enema was the optimal therapy in the endoscopic improvement and reducing diarrhea; QC enema + oral mesalazine was the best option in preventing bloody stool. Conclusion: This study confirmed the efficacy and safety of QC in treating active UC and suggested that the combination of oral medications with topical can achieve more benefits. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Plenty of clinical studies have suggested the value of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), but their efficacy and safety have not been systematically concluded yet. This article aimed to compare and rank the therapeutic effect and safety of CHM with routine pharmacotherapies and placebo in the treatment of IBS. Methods: Randomized controlled trials regarding CHM to treat IBS were searched in six databases from inception to Jan 31, 2020. A network meta-analysis was conducted to analyze the data of included publications. The quality assessment was assessed by Cochrane Handbook and GRADEpro software. The risk ratio was calculated for dichotomous outcomes while the standardized mean difference was used for continuous variables with 95% credible intervals. A Funnel plot was performed to evaluate publication bias. The surface under the cumulative ranking curve was conducted to rank the included interventions. Data were analyzed with STATA 15.0 and Review Manager 5.3. Result: 3194 records were searched, and 28 eligible trials involving 3323 patients ere identified. Compared with conventional therapies and placebo, Jianpi-Chushi therapy showed significant improvement in adequate relief and IBS symptom severity scale; Shugan-Jianpi therapy showed the best efficacy in relieving the abdominal pain and abdominal distension; Wenshen-Jianpi therapy had a better effect on avoiding adverse effects and improving stool character. Conclusion: This study confirmed that CHM could be beneficial for patients with IBS in relieving their clinical symptoms and should be recommended as alternative therapies. The quality of evidence in this study based on the GRADE system was "low". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of Modified Tongxie Yaofang (M-TXYF) for the treatment of diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D). Method: Electronic databases including PubMed, Springer Link, EMBASE, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Biomedical Literature (CBM), Wanfang, and Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) were conducted from their inception through May 11, 2017 without language restrictions. Primary and secondary outcomes were estimated by 95% confidence intervals (CI). RevMan 5.3 and the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool were analyzed for this meta-analysis. Results: Twenty-three literatures with a total of 1972 patients were included for the meta-analysis. The overall risk of bias evaluation was low. The pooled odds ratio showed that M-TXYF was significantly superior to routine pharmacotherapies (RP) in clinical therapeutic efficacy (OR 4.04, 95% CI 3.09, 5.27, P < 0.00001, therapeutic gain = 17.6%, number needed to treat (NNT) = 5.7). Moreover, compared with RP, M-TXYF showed that it can significantly reduce the scores of abdominal pain (standardized mean difference (SMD) -1.27; 95% CI -1.99, -0.56; P = 0.0005), abdominal distention (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.73, -0.01; P = 0.09), diarrhea (SMD -1.10; 95% CI -1.95, -0.25; P = 0.01), and frequency of defecation (SMD -1.42; 95% CI -2.19, -0.65; P = 0.0003). The differences of the adverse events between experiment and control groups had no statistical significance. Conclusion: This meta-analysis indicated that M-TXYF could be a promising Chinese herbal formula in treating IBS-D. However, considering the lack of higher quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), highly believable evidences should be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This meta-analysis analyzed the efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). Methods: We searched seven electronic databases for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of TCM in the treatment of IBS-C. The search period was from inception to June 1, 2017. Eligible RCTs compared TCM with cisapride and mosapride. Article quality was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk Bias Tool in the Cochrane Handbook by two independent reviewers. Begg’s test was performed to evaluate publication bias. Review Manager 5.3 and Stata 12.0 were used for analyses. Results: Eleven eligible studies comprising a total of 906 participants were identified. In the primary outcome, TCM showed significant improvement in overall clinical efficacy compared with cisapride and mosapride (odds ratio [OR] = 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.74,5.84; P < 0.00001). In terms of secondary outcomes, TCM significantly alleviated abdominal pain (OR = 5.69; 95% CI: 2.35, 13.78; P = 0.0001), defecation frequency (OR = 4.38; 95% CI: 1.93, 9.93. P = 0.0004), and stool form (OR = 4.96; 95% CI: 2.11, 11.65; P = 0.0002) in the treatment group as compared to the control group. A lower recurrence rate was associated with TCM as compared to cisapride and mosapride (OR = 0.15; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.27; P < 0.00001). No adverse effects were observed during TCM treatment. Conclusions: TCM showed greater improvement in terms of clinical efficacy in the treatment of IBS-C than cisapride and mosapride, although it was not possible to draw a definitive conclusion due to the small sample size, high risk, and low quality of the studies. Large multi-center and long-term high-quality randomized control trials are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]