Chen-Xia Sheng1,2,3, Ze-Qi Chen1,3, Han-Jin Cui1,3, A-Li Yang1,3, Cong Wang1,3, Zhe Wang2, Nan-Xiang Su2, Tao Tang4,5. 1. Institute of Integrative Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, China. 2. Department of Traditional Chinese Medicine, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410011, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Chinese Gan of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China, Changsha, 410008, China. 4. Institute of Integrative Medicine, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, 410008, China. falcontang@126.com. 5. Key Laboratory of Chinese Gan of State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine of China, Changsha, 410008, China. falcontang@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Guipi Decoction (, GPD) as an adjunctive in the treatment of depression. METHODS: A review of all relevant studies retrieved from a search of the following databases were conducted without any language restriction: Excerpt Medica Database (EMBASE), PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Information, Wanfang Data, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Papers published until February 2013 were taken into consideration. The analysis was performed using the Cochrane software Revman 5.1. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials involving 620 patients with depression were included in this review. The meta-analysis revealed that compared with antidepressant therapy alone, treatment with a combination of GPD and an antidepressant drug signifificantly improved the symptoms of depression [weighted mean difference (WMD):-3.09; 95% confifidence interval (CI):-4.11 to-2.07] and increased the rates of effectiveness (OR: 4.75; 95% CI: 2.66-8.51) as well as recovery (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.17-2.56). The adverse effects of GPD were not found to be signifificant in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: The fifindings of this meta-analysis were in keeping with the notion that GPD formulations were effective in the treatment of depression without causing any serious adverse effects. However, currently available evidence was of low quality and therefore inadequate to justify a strong recommendation of using GPD formulations in the management of depression.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Guipi Decoction (, GPD) as an adjunctive in the treatment of depression. METHODS: A review of all relevant studies retrieved from a search of the following databases were conducted without any language restriction: Excerpt Medica Database (EMBASE), PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Information, Wanfang Data, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database. Papers published until February 2013 were taken into consideration. The analysis was performed using the Cochrane software Revman 5.1. RESULTS: Nine randomized controlled trials involving 620 patients with depression were included in this review. The meta-analysis revealed that compared with antidepressant therapy alone, treatment with a combination of GPD and an antidepressant drug signifificantly improved the symptoms of depression [weighted mean difference (WMD):-3.09; 95% confifidence interval (CI):-4.11 to-2.07] and increased the rates of effectiveness (OR: 4.75; 95% CI: 2.66-8.51) as well as recovery (OR: 1.73; 95% CI: 1.17-2.56). The adverse effects of GPD were not found to be signifificant in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: The fifindings of this meta-analysis were in keeping with the notion that GPD formulations were effective in the treatment of depression without causing any serious adverse effects. However, currently available evidence was of low quality and therefore inadequate to justify a strong recommendation of using GPD formulations in the management of depression.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chinese medicine formula; Guipi Decoction; Meta-analysis; depression
Authors: P Weeke; A Jensen; F Folke; G H Gislason; J B Olesen; C Andersson; E L Fosbøl; J K Larsen; F K Lippert; S L Nielsen; T Gerds; P K Andersen; J K Kanters; H E Poulsen; S Pehrson; L Køber; C Torp-Pedersen Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jordan W Smoller; Matthew Allison; Barbara B Cochrane; J David Curb; Roy H Perlis; Jennifer G Robinson; Milagros C Rosal; Nanette K Wenger; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2009-12-14
Authors: George I Papakostas; Timothy Petersen; Megan E Hughes; Andrew A Nierenberg; Jonathan E Alpert; Maurizio Fava Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2004-05-30 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: Ralph A H Stewart; Fiona M North; Teena M West; Katrina J Sharples; R John Simes; David M Colquhoun; Harvey D White; Andrew M Tonkin Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Victor M Castro; Caitlin C Clements; Shawn N Murphy; Vivian S Gainer; Maurizio Fava; Jeffrey B Weilburg; Jane L Erb; Susanne E Churchill; Isaac S Kohane; Dan V Iosifescu; Jordan W Smoller; Roy H Perlis Journal: BMJ Date: 2013-01-29
Authors: Jerome Sarris; Wolfgang Marx; Melanie M Ashton; Chee H Ng; Nicole Galvao-Coelho; Zahra Ayati; Zhang-Jin Zhang; Siegfried Kasper; Arun Ravindran; Brian H Harvey; Adrian Lopresti; David Mischoulon; Jay Amsterdam; Lakshmi N Yatham; Michael Berk Journal: Can J Psychiatry Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 4.356