Systematic Evaluation of Pushen Capsule in the Treatment of Hyperlipidemia： A Meta-analysis
10.13422/j.cnki.syfjx.20212192
- VernacularTitle:蒲参胶囊治疗高脂血症有效性和安全性的系统评价与Meta分析
- Author:
Hui-min LI
1
;
Rui-xue HU
1
;
Ze-qi DAI
1
;
Si-min XU
1
;
Jing HU
2
;
Xing LIAO
1
Author Information
1. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine，China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences， Beijing 100700，China
2. Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine（TCM） Affiliated to Capital Medical University， Evidence-based Medicine Center，Beijing Institute of TCM，Beijing 100010，China
- Publication Type:Research Article
- Keywords:
Pushen capsule;
hyperlipidemia;
randomized controlled trial;
systematic review;
Meta-analysis
- From:
Chinese Journal of Experimental Traditional Medical Formulae
2021;27(21):198-206
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
The present study systematically evaluated the efficacy and safety of Pushen capsule （PC） in the treatment of hyperlipidemia （HPL） to provide the basis for its clinical application in the future. The randomized controlled trials （RCTs） of PC in treating HPL were comprehensively retrieved from four Chinese databases and three English databases. The included RCTs were evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool， followed by the Meta-analysis by RevMan 5.3. Twenty-four RCTs were included， with 2 634 patients involved. The patients in the experimental group were treated with PC， PC combined with conventional therapy，or PC combined with other Chinese patent medicine. The cases in the control group were treated conventionally or by other Chinese patent medicine. Meta-analysis results showed that PC alone or in combination was superior to the treatment in the control group in improving total cholesterol （TC），triglyceride （TG），high-density lipoprotein cholesterol （HDL-C），low-density lipoprotein cholesterol （LDL-C），and total response rate. Fourteen trials reported adverse reactions， including seven reporting specific results. The adverse reactions were dominated by epigastric discomfort， but the difference was not statistically significant. However， affected by the quality of the included trials，the evidence strength of the conclusion of this study is graded low. More high-quality RCTs reported in detail are needed for further confirmation.
