| Literature DB >> 27777598 |
Wei Liu1, Xingjiang Xiong2, Xiaochen Yang2, Fuyong Chu1, Hongxu Liu1.
Abstract
We systematically assess the current clinical evidence of Gualouxiebaibanxia (GLXBBX) decoction for the treatment of angina pectoris (AP). We included RCTs testing GLXBBX against conventional drugs and GLXBBX combined with conventional drugs versus conventional drugs. 19 RCTs involving 1730 patients were finally identified, and the methodological quality was evaluated as generally low. The results of the meta-analysis showed that GLXBBX alone had significant effect on improving angina symptoms (RR: 1.24, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.35; P < 0.00001), ECG (RR: 1.28 [1.13,1.44]; P < 0.0001), and HDL-C (MD: 0.56 [0.54,0.58]; P < 0.00001) compared with anti-arrhythmic drugs. A significant improvement in angina symptoms (RR: 1.17 [1.12,1.22]; P < 0.00001) and ECG (RR = 1.22; 95% CI = [1.14,1.30]; P < 0.00001) was observed for GLXBBX plus conventional drugs when compared with conventional drugs. Eight trials reported adverse events without serious adverse effects. GLXBBX appears to have beneficial effects on improvement of ECG and reduction of angina symptoms in participants with AP. However, the evidence remains weak due to the poor methodological quality of the included studies. More rigorous trials are needed to confirm the results.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27777598 PMCID: PMC5061958 DOI: 10.1155/2016/8565907
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flow diagram of study selection and identification.
Characteristics and methodological quality of included studies.
| Study ID | Sample (M/F) | Age (yrs) | Type of angina | Diagnosis standard | Intervention | Control | Course (week) | Outcome measure |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen, 2008 [ | 60 | T: 48–70 (52 ± 10) | T: SAP: 20, UAP: 10 | GCRNDTCM | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG; adverse event |
|
| ||||||||
| Bai and Shi, 2007 [ | 92 | 43–75 | AP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS |
|
| ||||||||
| Yang and Zhou, 2007 [ | 62 | T: 48–75 | AP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG |
|
| ||||||||
| Hu, 2001 [ | 69 | T: 40–74 | AP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG |
|
| ||||||||
| Zhang and Li, 2013 [ | 100 | T: 35–72 (56.5 ± 5.3) | SAP: 71; UAP: 29 | Unclear | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG; BL |
|
| ||||||||
| He et al., 2006 [ | 110 | T: 47–76 (59.25 ± 6.07) | AP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG; BL; adverse event |
|
| ||||||||
| Shi et al., 2013 [ | 90 | T: 40–68 (53.75) | AP | GCRNDTCM | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG; adverse event |
|
| ||||||||
| Si and Yin, 2012 [ | 60 | T: 40–68 (53.75) | UAP | Unclear | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 2 | RAS; ECG |
|
| ||||||||
| Wang, 2012 [ | 110 | T: 39–75 (62.6) | AP | GCRNDTCM | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 2 | RAS; FAA; adverse event |
|
| ||||||||
| Zhang and Zhu, 2003 [ | 120 | T: 40–65 | SAP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG |
|
| ||||||||
| Fang, 2011 [ | 64 | T: 46–86 | SAP | GCRNDTCM | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 8 | RAS; BL |
|
| ||||||||
| Zhu, 2012 [ | 80 | T: 40–82 | AP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 8 | RAS |
|
| ||||||||
| Li and Cai, 2011 [ | 82 | T: 48–76 | AP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS |
|
| ||||||||
| Zhang, 2015 [ | 84 | T: 62–86 (71.53 ± 5.26) | AP | GCRNDTCM | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 2 | RAS; ECG |
|
| ||||||||
| Ma, 2015 [ | 110 | T: 40–81 (53.73 ± 5.6) | T: SAP: 14, UAP: 41 | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 8 | RAS; ECG; adverse event |
|
| ||||||||
| Yang et al., 2015 [ | 84 | T: 55.9 ± 5.7 | SAP: 30, UAP: 54 | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 2 | RAS; ECG |
|
| ||||||||
| Tong and Xiong, 2013 [ | 63 | T: 48–74 (61.77 ± 8.34) | UAP | 2002 ACCF/AHA | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 3 | RAS; BL; adverse event |
|
| ||||||||
| Wang, 2015 [ | 210 | T: 45–70 (59.25) | SAP | 1979 ISFC/WHO | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 4 | RAS; ECG; adverse event |
|
| ||||||||
| Yang, 2015 [ | 80 | T: 39–78 (58.3 ± 5.7) | AP | GCRNDTCM | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Conventional drugs | 8 | RAS; adverse event |
T, intervention group; C, control group; SAP: stable angina pectoris; UAP: unstable angina pectoris; RAS: reduction of angina symptoms; FAA: frequency of angina attack; GCRNDTCM: Guidelines of Clinical Research of New Drugs of Traditional Chinese Medicine; BL: blood lipid.
Compositions of GLXBBX decoction in the included trials.
| Study ID | Formula | Composition of formula |
|---|---|---|
| Chen, 2008 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Bai and Shi, 2007 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Yang and Zhou, 2007 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Hu, 2001 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Zhang and Li, 2013 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| He et al., 2006 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Shi et al., 2013 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Medicinal Changium Root (Shenqu, Medicated Leaven) 15 g, |
|
| ||
| Si and Yin, 2012 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Wang, 2012 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Zhang and Zhu, 2003 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Fang, 2011 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Zhu, 2012 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction |
|
|
| ||
| Li and Cai, 2011 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Zhang, 2015 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Ma, 2015 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Yang et al., 2015 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Tong and Xiong, 2013 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Wang, 2015 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
|
| ||
| Yang, 2015 [ | Modified GLXBBX decoction | Snake Gourd Fruit (Gualou, |
Figure 2Risk of bias summary: reviewing authors' judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.
Figure 3Risk of bias graph: reviewing authors' judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Figure 4Analysis of RAS for AP. Forest plot of comparison: GLXBBX versus conventional drugs.
Figure 5Analysis of RAS for AP. Forest plot of comparison: GLXBBX combined with conventional drugs versus conventional drugs.
Figure 6Analysis of ECG improvement for AP. Forest plot of comparison: GLXBBX versus conventional drugs.
Figure 7Analysis of ECG improvement for AP. Forest plot of comparison: GLXBBX combined with conventional drugs versus conventional drugs.
Figure 8Forest plot of comparison: GLXBBX versus conventional drugs, outcome: HDL-C.
The effect of GLXBBX for SAP or UAP group, outcome = RAS.
| Study ID | Response rate% (response/ | Therapeutic gain, % | NNT | RR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | ||||
| Shi et al., 2013 [ | 93.33 (42/45) | 75.56 (34/45) | 17.77 | 5.63 | 1.24 |
| Wang, 2012 [ | 94.12 (64/68) | 85.71 (36/42) | 8.41 | 11.89 | 1.10 |
| Zhu, 2012 [ | 88.00 (44/50) | 66.67 (20/30) | 21.33 | 4.69 | 1.32 |
| Li and Cai, 2011 [ | 95.24 (40/42) | 80.00 (32/40) | 15.24 | 6.56 | 1.19 |
| Zhang, 2015 [ | 90.48 (38/42) | 71.43 (30/42) | 19.05 | 5.25 | 1.27 |
| Ma, 2015 [ | 92.73 (51/55) | 76.36 (42/55) | 16.37 | 6.11 | 1.21 |
| Yang et al., 2015 [ | 90.48 (38/42) | 80.95 (34/42) | 9.53 | 10.49 | 1.12 |
| Yang, 2015 [ | 90.00 (36/40) | 72.50 (29/40) | 17.5 | 5.71 | 1.24 |
| Pooled RR | 91.93 (353/384) | 76.49 (257/336) | 15.44 | 6.48 | 1.20 |
The effect of GLXBBX for SAP or UAP group, outcome = ECG.
| Study ID | Response rate% (response/ | Therapeutic gain, % | NNT | RR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | ||||
| Shi et al., 2013 [ | 88.89 (40/45) | 71.11 (32/45) | 17.78 | 5.62 | 1.25 |
| Zhang, 2015 [ | 73.81 (31/42) | 54.76 (23/42) | 19.05 | 5.25 | 1.35 |
| Ma, 2015 [ | 96.36 (53/55) | 80.00 (44/55) | 16.36 | 6.11 | 1.20 |
| Yang et al., 2015 [ | 88.10 (37/42) | 76.19 (32/42) | 11.90 | 8.40 | 1.16 |
| Pooled RR | 87.5 (161/184) | 71.20 (131/184) | 16.30 | 6.13 | 1.23 |
The effect of GLXBBX for SAP, outcome = RAS.
| Study ID | Response rate% (response/ | Therapeutic gain, % | NNT | RR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | ||||
| Zhang and Zhu, 2003 [ | 96.67 (58/60) | 86.67 (52/60) | 10.00 | 10.00 | 1.12 |
| Fang, 2011 [ | 79.41 (27/34) | 66.67 (20/30) | 12.74 | 7.85 | 1.19 |
| Wang, 2015 [ | 98.10 (103/105) | 88.57 (93/105) | 9.53 | 10.49 | 1.11 |
| Pooled RR | 94.47 (188/199) | 84.62 (165/195) | 9.85 | 10.15 | 1.12 |
The effect of GLXBBX for SAP, outcome = ECG.
| Study ID | Response rate% (response/ | Therapeutic gain, % | NNT | RR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | ||||
| Zhang and Zhu, 2003 [ | 71.67 (43/60) | 50.00 (30/60) | 21.67 | 4.61 | 1.43 |
| Wang, 2015 [ | 97.14 (102/105) | 82.86 (87/105) | 14.28 | 7.01 | 1.17 |
| Pooled RR | 87.88 (145/165) | 70.91 (117/165) | 16.98 | 5.89 | 1.24 |
The effect of GLXBBX for UAP, outcome = RAS.
| Study ID | Response rate% (response/ | Therapeutic gain, % | NNT | RR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | ||||
| Si and Yin, 2012 [ | 93.33 (28/30) | 76.67 (23/30) | 16.66 | 6.00 | 1.22 |
| Tong and Xiong, 2013 [ | 93.75 (30/32) | 87.10 (27/31) | 6.65 | 15.04 | 1.08 |
| Pooled RR | 93.55 (58/62) | 81.97 (50/61) | 11.59 | 8.63 | 1.14 |
The effect of GLXBBX for UAP, outcome = ECG.
| Study ID | Response rate% (response/ | Therapeutic gain, % | NNT | RR | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Control | ||||
| Si and Yin, 2012 [ | 80.00 (24/30) | 63.33 (19/30) | 16.67 | 6.00 | 1.26 |
| Pooled RR | 80.00 (24/30) | 63.33 (19/30) | 16.67 | 6.00 | 1.26 |
Figure 9Funnel plot of comparison: GLXBBX combined with conventional drugs versus conventional drugs for the outcome of RAS.