Objective To evaluate the clinical therapeutic effect and safety of western medicine plus Shenfu Injection versus simple western medicine in heart failure (HF) patients. Methods Such databases as CNKI (January 1979 to 2009), VIP (January 1989 to December 2009), CBM (1978 to 2009), PubMed (1978 to December 2009), The Cochrane Library (Issue 4, 2009) and relevant journals were searched, and the literature of randomized controlled trials comparing the combination of western medicine and Shenfu Injection with simple western medicine in HF patients was included. The quality of studies was evaluated according to the methods of the Cochrane Collaboration, the data were extracted; and meta-analyses were performed with RevMan5.0.2 software. Results Sixteen trials involving 1 117 patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that compared with the simple western medicine treatment, the combination of western medicine and Shenfu Injection therapy significantly improved the symptoms, clinical comprehensive effect (RR=3.30, 95%CI 2.22 to 4.92, Plt;0.000 01), TCM syndrome and patient’s quality of life (RR=6.85, 95%CI 2.90 to 16.17, Plt;0.000 01), increased left ventricular ejection fraction (WMD=3.54, 95%CI 2.78 to 4.30, Plt;0.000 01), and reduced LVSD (WMD=2.43, 95%CI 1.04 to 3.82, P=0.000 6). Meanwhile, only one trail indicated that the combination of western medicine and Shenfu Injection might increase the six-minute walking distance, reduce the level of IL-6 and TNF-α, and eliminate the Lee’s HF and LVD-36 questionnaire integral. Conclusion The therapeutic effect of combining western medicine with Shenfu Injection therapy on HF patients is better than that of simple western medicine treatment.
Objective To evaluate the clinical effect and safety of western medicine plus Shenmai Injection versus western medicine alone for heart failure (HF) patients. Methods We searched CNKI (January 1979 to April 2009), VIP (January 1989 to April 2009), CBM (1978 to 2009), PubMed (1978 to April 2009), The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2009), and other relevant databases and journals to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about western medicine plus Shenmai Injection versus western medicine alone for HF patients. The methodological quality was assessed and the data was extralted according to the Cochrane Reviewer’s Handbook and related methods. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.0.2 software.Results Fifteen eligible studies involving 1174 HF patients were included. The results of meta-analyses showed that western medicine plus Shenmai Injection therapy could precisely improve the general therapeutic effects (RR=1.27, 95%CI 1.19 to 1.35, Plt;0.000 01), increase left ventricular ejection fraction (WMD=7.17, 95%CI 4.65 to 9.70, Plt;0.000 01), and make ventricular diastolic function better (minor weight literature: WMD=0.38, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.45, Plt;0.000 01; major weight literature: WMD=0.38, 95%CI 0.32 to 0.45). Meanwhile, only one study indicated that western medicine plus Shenmai Injection could increase 6-minute walking distance, reduce BNP, IL-6, and TNF-α levels, respectively. Conclusion By comparison with western medicine alone, western medicine plus Shenmai Injection can improve the therapeutic effect on HF patients.
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has some unique advantages in the prevention and treatment of cancer. Due to different ideas and mechanism of between TCM and biomedicine in the prevention and treatment of cancer, the clinial effect evaluation approches of biomedicine could not be used as a beneficial method to scientifically evaluate the effects of TCM. From three angles, this article analyzes the key issues regardsing the evaluation methods of TCM as an adjuvant therapy of cancer. It draws lessons from the idea of quality-adjusted survival (QAS), proposes Two-in-One (TIO) method to evaluate the effects of TCM as adjuvant therapy of cancer, which reflects the combined value of the individual patient dynamic information and provides methodological support for the effect evaluation of TCM.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the efficacy and safety of Xinmailong injection in the treatment of different types of heart failure with ejection fraction.MethodsCNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, CBM, PubMed, EMbase and The Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched to collect randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Xinmailong injection in the treatment of different types of heart failure with ejection fraction from inception to August 5th, 2020. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and assessed risk of bias of included studies. Meta-analysis was then performed using RevMan 5.3 software.ResultsA total of 25 RCTs involving 2 467 patients were included. The results of meta-analysis showed that Xinmailong injection combined with conventional therapy was superior to conventional therapy alone on NYHA classification efficiency (HFrEF: RR=1.32, 95%CI 1.04 to 1.69, P=0.02), comprehensive clinical efficacy (HFrEF: RR=1.24, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.34, P<0.000 01; HFpEF: RR=1.22, 95%CI 1.15 to 1.30, P<0.000 01), score of life quality (HFrEF: MD=−7.08, 95%CI −9.34 to −4.82, P<0.000 01), left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF: MD=4.99, 95%CI 3.18 to 6.80, P<0.000 01; HFpEF: MD=5.10, 95% CI 0.62 to 9.58, P=0.03), the level of B-type natriuretic peptide (HFrEF: SMD=−0.96, 95%CI −1.36 to −0.56, P<0.000 01; HFpEF: SMD=−1.83, 95%CI−2.35 to −1.31, P<0.000 01), the level of N-terminal pro-B natriuretic peptide (HFrEF: SMD=−2.98, 95%CI −4.45 to −1.51, P<0.000 1), and 6-minute walking distance (HFrEF: MD=52.56, 95%CI 34.22 to 70.90, P<0.000 01). There was no significant difference in drug-related adverse reactions between two groups.ConclusionsCurrent evidence shows that Xinmailong injection combined with conventional therapy have good efficacy and safety in the treatment of heart failure with different ejection fractions. Due to limited quality and quantity of the included studies, more high quality studies are required to verify above conclusions.