| Literature DB >> 32419800 |
Yao Zhou1,2, Shi-Min Jiang1,2, Li Li1, Ying Wang1, Lei Ding1, Chao-Xia Liu1, Qi Wu3, Kun Gao4,5.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of tanshinone for chronic kidney disease (CKD).Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32419800 PMCID: PMC7201484 DOI: 10.1155/2020/3091814
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Flowchart showing the process of study selection.
Characteristics of included articles.
| Study | Year | Treatment | Control | Number (T/C) | Duration | Results report |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yang and Li [ | 2016 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (40–80 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + western standard treatment | Western standard treatment | 96/96 | 21 d | mALB |
| Hu [ | 2017 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (40 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + valsartan (80 mg/d, po, qd) | Valsartan (80 mg/d, po, qd) | 40/40 | 14 d | Scr |
| Ma et al. [ | 2017 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (60 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + valsartan (80 mg/d, po, qd) | Valsartan (80 mg/d, po, qd) | 36/36 | 14 d | Scr |
| Li and Guo [ | 2017 | Sulfotanshinone (60 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + valsartan (200 mg/d, po, qd) | Valsartan (200 mg/d, po, qd) | 100/100 | 14 d | Scr, CysC, 24-hour proteinuria |
| Cao et al. [ | 2014 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (60 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + irbesartan (150 mg/d, po, qd) | Irbesartan (150 mg/d, po, qd) | 45/44 | 28 d | mALB, 24-hour proteinuria |
| Tuxunguli [ | 2017 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (60 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + valsartan (80 mg/d, po, qd) | Valsartan (80 mg/d, po, qd) | 64/64 | 14 d | Scr, CysC, 24-hour proteinuria |
| Li [ | 2018 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (60 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + alprostadil (10 | Alprostadil (10 | 52/52 | 14 d | BUN, scr, |
| Gong et al. [ | 2012 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (40 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + alprostadil (10 | Alprostadil (10 | 39/39 | 14 d | BUN, |
| Li [ | 2007 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (60 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + western standard treatment | Western standard treatment | 20/20 | 21 d | Scr, safety |
| Gao and Gao [ | 2011 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (50 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + western standard treatment | Western standard treatment | 48/42 | 28 d | BUN, Scr,24-hour proteinuria |
| Yan et al. [ | 2011 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (50 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + western standard treatment | Western standard treatment | 71/59 | 15 d | GFR |
| Deng [ | 2011 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (60 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + western standard treatment | Western standard treatment | 20/20 | 20 d | CysC, 24-hour proteinuria |
| Wang [ | 2014 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (40 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + + Alprostadil (10 | Western standard treatment | 32/32 | 28 d | BUN, GFR, safety |
| Peng et al. [ | 2010 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (40 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + haikun shenxi capsule (6 capsules/d, po, tid) | Western standard treatment | 30/28 | 21 d | BUN, scr |
| Wei et al. [ | 2016 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (40 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + alprostadil (10 | Alprostadil (10 | 27/15 | 14 d | BUN |
| Xu [ | 2013 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (50 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + alprostadil (10 | Alprostadil (10 | 40/40 | 28 d | Scr |
| Wang [ | 2018 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (50 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + shen kang injection (100 ml/d, ivgtt, qd) | Western standard treatment | 50/50 | 30 d | 24-hour proteinuria |
| Ping [ | 2007 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (50 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + prednisone (1 mg/kg/d, po, qd) | Prednisone (1 mg/kg/d, po, qd) | 40/22 | 21 d | BUN |
| Chen et al. [ | 2009 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (100 mg/d, ivgtt, qd) + prednisone (1 mg/kg/d, po, qd) | Prednisone (1 mg/kg/d, po, qd) | 60/60 | 60 d | BUN |
| Liao et al. [ | 2009 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (0.5 mg/kg/d, ivgtt, qd) + western standard treatment | Western standard treatment | 14/14 | 7 d | GFR |
| Gu et al. [ | 2013 | Sulfotanshinone IIA (0.5 mg/kg/d, ivgtt, qd) + western standard treatment | Western standard treatment | 30/30 | 14 d | GFR |
Figure 2Bias risk analysis of the included studies. (a) Methodological quality assessment of all included studies. (b) Summary of methodological quality assessment of each included study. +: L (low risk of bias); ?: U (unclear risk of bias); −: H (high risk of bias).
Figure 3Comparison of BUN levels between the tanshinone treatment and control groups. (a) Forest plots comparing BUN levels between the groups. (b) Funnel plot showing publication bias of BUN between the groups using Begg's rank correlation test.
Figure 4Comparison of Scr in the tanshinone treatment group and control group. (a) Forest plots for comparisons of Scr between the groups. (b) Funnel plot showing Scr publication bias between the groups using Begg's rank correlation test.
Figure 5Comparison of GFR between the tanshinone treatment and control groups. (a) Forest plots for comparisons of GFR between the groups. (b) Funnel plot for GFR publication bias between the groups.
Figure 6Comparison of 24 h urine protein in the tanshinone treatment and control groups. (a) Forest plots for comparisons of 24 h urine protein between the groups. (b) Funnel plot for 24 h urine protein publication bias between the groups.
Figure 7Comparison of mALB in the tanshinone treatment group and control group. (a) Forest plots for comparisons of mALB between the groups. (b) Funnel plot showing mALB publication bias between the groups.
Figure 8Comparison of β2-MG levels in the tanshinone treatment group and control group. (a) Forest plots for comparisons of β2-MG between the groups. (b) Funnel plots for β2-MG publication bias between the groups.
Figure 9Comparison of CysC levels in the tanshinone treatment and control groups. (a) Forest plots for comparisons of CysC between the groups. (b) Funnel plot for CysC publication bias between the groups using Begg's rank correlation test.
Figure 10Comparison of safety between the tanshinone treatment and control groups. (a) Forest plots for comparisons of safety between the groups. (b) Funnel plot for the publication bias of safety between the groups using Begg's rank correlation test.