Efficacy and safety of Tripterygium wilfordii Hook. f. for oral lichen planus: Evidence from 18 randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (9) ◽  
pp. 2180-2191 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yue Luo ◽  
Le Kuai ◽  
Jia Chen ◽  
Xiaoying Sun ◽  
Liu Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Lichen Planus ◽  
Oral Lichen Planus ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook F ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook ◽  
Oral Lichen

scholarly journals Efficacy and Safety of Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook F on Psoriasis Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meng Lv ◽  
Jingwen Deng ◽  
Nan Tang ◽  
Yuejin Zeng ◽  
Chuanjian Lu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Combination Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook F ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Tripterygium Wilfordii Hook

Background. Psoriasis is a chronic autoimmune-mediated skin disease that is characterized by persistent localized erythematous scaly plaque. Tripterygium wilfordii Hook F (TwHF), a well-known Chinese medicine that has been used for centuries in China to treat immune diseases, inflammation, and tumor, is accompanied by a degree of toxic effects. Its clinical efficacy and safety on psoriasis are incompletely understood. Aim. To summarize evidence concerning the efficacy and safety of TwHF in treating psoriasis. Methods. EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Web of Science, Springer, Cochrane Library, CNKI, CBM, Wanfang, and VIP database were searched up to October 2017. The included literature was assessed and extracted by two independent reviewers. To enhance the available evidence, a systematic review was performed to examine all relevant published literature relating to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of TwHF. Relative ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and a meta-analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 software. Results. Twenty eligible RCTs with 1872 participants were included for systematic review and meta-analysis. Studies were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. The meta-analysis of add-on effect of TwHF conferred benefit for psoriasis: combination treatment with compound glycyrrhizin (four studies, OR = 0.34, 95% CI 0.22–0.52, P<0.00001, I2=0%), combination treatment with acitretin (three studies, OR = 0.25, 95% CI 0.10–0.63, P=0.003, I2=50%), and combination treatment with compound amino-polypeptide tablet (three studies, OR = 0.37, 95% CI 0.22–0.63, P=0.0002, I2=0%). Conclusions. Despite several mild side effects of TwHF, there is evidence that TwHF is an effective therapy for psoriasis. However, the conclusions are limited by the small number of included trials. More well-designed RCTs with extensive follow-up periods are warranted to clarify the effects and safety of TwHF in treating psoriasis. Trial Registration. This review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42016041363).

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document