4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Efficacy and Safety of Integrated Traditional Chinese Medicine and Western Medicine on the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Analysis

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          Integrated therapy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Western medicine (WM) has gradually been applied to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Recently published studies have provided a wealth of data and information about the effectiveness of combination treatments, but high-quality evidence-based meta-analysis on this issue is not available yet. This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the efficacy and safety of the integrated therapy for RA.

          Methods

          PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched up to January 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the efficacy and safety of integrative TCM-WM with WM alone for RA were included. The outcome measures contained therapeutic effects (TEs), tender joint count (TJC), swollen joint count (SJC), duration of morning stiffness (DMS), grip strength (GS), disease activity score in 28 joints (DAS28), rheumatoid factor (RF), anti-cyclic peptide containing citrulline (anti-CCP), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP), and adverse events (AEs) to assess the efficacy and safety of different treatments.

          Results

          A total of 20 RCTs with 2269 patients met the inclusion criteria. TCM used in these studies included Chinese herbal decoctions and tablets or capsules made from herbs and their extracts, while WM included disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and glucocorticoids (GC). Compared with patients receiving WM treatment alone, patients with integrative TCM-WM treatment showed better TEs (OR = 3.03, 95% CI [2.36, 3.88]). The integrative treatment group showed reductions in TJC (MD = −1.17, 95% CI [−2.12, −0.21]), SJC (MD = −0.87, 95% CI [−1.85, 0.10]), DMS (SMD = −0.69, 95% CI [−0.98, −0.41]), DAS28 (MD = −0.43, 95% CI [−0.57, −0.29]), RF (SMD = −0.59, 95% CI [−0.91, −0.27]), anti-CCP (SMD = −0.21, 95% CI [−0.36, −0.06]), ESR (MD = −8.36, 95% CI [−12.60, −4.12]), and CRP (MD = −6.73, 95% CI [−9.38, −4.08]), and increment in GS (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI [−0.63, 0.87]). AEs, especially gastrointestinal disorders, abnormal liver function, leukopenia, skin allergies and rashes, headaches and dizziness, and alopecia, significantly decreased (OR = 0.37, 95% CI [0.29, 0.47]) in the integrative treatment group.

          Conclusions

          The findings of this meta-analysis indicate that integrative TCM-WM could obtain effective and safe results in the treatment of RA. Using TCM as an adjunctive therapy in RA has great prospects for further development.

          Related collections

          Most cited references54

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Diagnosis and Management of Rheumatoid Arthritis

          Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) occurs in about 5 per 1000 people and can lead to severe joint damage and disability. Significant progress has been made over the past 2 decades regarding understanding of disease pathophysiology, optimal outcome measures, and effective treatment strategies, including the recognition of the importance of diagnosing and treating RA early.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2016 update.

            Recent insights in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) necessitated updating the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) RA management recommendations. A large international Task Force based decisions on evidence from 3 systematic literature reviews, developing 4 overarching principles and 12 recommendations (vs 3 and 14, respectively, in 2013). The recommendations address conventional synthetic (cs) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) (methotrexate (MTX), leflunomide, sulfasalazine); glucocorticoids (GC); biological (b) DMARDs (tumour necrosis factor (TNF)-inhibitors (adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept, golimumab, infliximab), abatacept, rituximab, tocilizumab, clazakizumab, sarilumab and sirukumab and biosimilar (bs) DMARDs) and targeted synthetic (ts) DMARDs (Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitors tofacitinib, baricitinib). Monotherapy, combination therapy, treatment strategies (treat-to-target) and the targets of sustained clinical remission (as defined by the American College of Rheumatology-(ACR)-EULAR Boolean or index criteria) or low disease activity are discussed. Cost aspects were taken into consideration. As first strategy, the Task Force recommends MTX (rapid escalation to 25 mg/week) plus short-term GC, aiming at >50% improvement within 3 and target attainment within 6 months. If this fails stratification is recommended. Without unfavourable prognostic markers, switching to-or adding-another csDMARDs (plus short-term GC) is suggested. In the presence of unfavourable prognostic markers (autoantibodies, high disease activity, early erosions, failure of 2 csDMARDs), any bDMARD (current practice) or Jak-inhibitor should be added to the csDMARD. If this fails, any other bDMARD or tsDMARD is recommended. If a patient is in sustained remission, bDMARDs can be tapered. For each recommendation, levels of evidence and Task Force agreement are provided, both mostly very high. These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumatology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: network meta-analysis

              Objective To analyse the available evidence on cardiovascular safety of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. Design Network meta-analysis. Data sources Bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, study registers, the Food and Drug Administration website, reference lists of relevant articles, and reports citing relevant articles through the Science Citation Index (last update July 2009). Manufacturers of celecoxib and lumiracoxib provided additional data. Study selection All large scale randomised controlled trials comparing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug with other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or placebo. Two investigators independently assessed eligibility. Data extraction The primary outcome was myocardial infarction. Secondary outcomes included stroke, death from cardiovascular disease, and death from any cause. Two investigators independently extracted data. Data synthesis 31 trials in 116 429 patients with more than 115 000 patient years of follow-up were included. Patients were allocated to naproxen, ibuprofen, diclofenac, celecoxib, etoricoxib, rofecoxib, lumiracoxib, or placebo. Compared with placebo, rofecoxib was associated with the highest risk of myocardial infarction (rate ratio 2.12, 95% credibility interval 1.26 to 3.56), followed by lumiracoxib (2.00, 0.71 to 6.21). Ibuprofen was associated with the highest risk of stroke (3.36, 1.00 to 11.6), followed by diclofenac (2.86, 1.09 to 8.36). Etoricoxib (4.07, 1.23 to 15.7) and diclofenac (3.98, 1.48 to 12.7) were associated with the highest risk of cardiovascular death. Conclusions Although uncertainty remains, little evidence exists to suggest that any of the investigated drugs are safe in cardiovascular terms. Naproxen seemed least harmful. Cardiovascular risk needs to be taken into account when prescribing any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                Evid Based Complement Alternat Med
                ECAM
                Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine : eCAM
                Hindawi
                1741-427X
                1741-4288
                2020
                2 April 2020
                2 April 2020
                : 2020
                : 4348709
                Affiliations
                The First Clinical Medical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing 210023, China
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Alfredo Vannacci

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5926-3276
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1007-6757
                Article
                10.1155/2020/4348709
                7154968
                32328130
                b5e9a515-ded9-46b2-af22-e24832082861
                Copyright © 2020 Qi Xing et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 23 October 2019
                : 26 January 2020
                : 20 February 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: National Natural Science Foundation of China
                Award ID: 81973741
                Categories
                Review Article

                Complementary & Alternative medicine
                Complementary & Alternative medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article