Li Zhong1, Jieqin Zhuang2, Zilin Jin2, Yanhong Chen2, Bojun Chen3. 1. Second Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510515, China; Department of Critical Care Medicine, The First Affiliated Hospital, Guizhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guiyang 550001, China. 2. Second Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510515, China. 3. Second Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510515, China. Electronic address: bjc2019@sina.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood-activating drugs (BADs) are widely used to treat microvascular angina in China. This study aims to summarize relevant evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of BADs in the treatment of microvascular angina. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies before June 2019 from seven databases. Twenty-four studies were included of 1903 patients with microvascular angina. All studies compared the use of traditional Chinese medicine for activating blood circulation (BADs) and Western medicine (WM) with the use of Western medicine alone. RESULTS: In all, 15 trials reported a significant effect of BADs on improving clinical symptoms compared with the control treatment (P < .00001), and 8 trials reported significant effects of BADs on reducing the frequency of angina pectoris attacks compared with Western medicine treatment (P < .00001). The pooled results also demonstrated that BADs provided a significant benefit in reducing the dosage of nitroglycerin required (P = .02), the maximum range of ST-segment depression (P = .003) and the descending degree of the ST-T segment of ECG (P = .0002); prolonging the total time of treadmill exercise (P < .00001) and the time of ST-segment depression of 1 mm (P = .002); enhancing the total effective rate of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) syndromes (P < .00001); improving endothelial function (P < .00001); and reducing the levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (P < .00001). BAD treatment showed no statistically significant effect on the levels of TNF-a (P = .8) or IL-6 (P = .13). No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that BADs are effective for the treatment of microvascular angina. Although concerns regarding selective bias and low methodological quality were raised, our findings suggest that BADs are beneficial for patients with microvascular angina and should be given priority for future clinical studies.
BACKGROUND: Blood-activating drugs (BADs) are widely used to treat microvascular angina in China. This study aims to summarize relevant evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the efficacy and safety of BADs in the treatment of microvascular angina. METHODS: We searched for relevant studies before June 2019 from seven databases. Twenty-four studies were included of 1903 patients with microvascular angina. All studies compared the use of traditional Chinese medicine for activating blood circulation (BADs) and Western medicine (WM) with the use of Western medicine alone. RESULTS: In all, 15 trials reported a significant effect of BADs on improving clinical symptoms compared with the control treatment (P < .00001), and 8 trials reported significant effects of BADs on reducing the frequency of angina pectoris attacks compared with Western medicine treatment (P < .00001). The pooled results also demonstrated that BADs provided a significant benefit in reducing the dosage of nitroglycerin required (P = .02), the maximum range of ST-segment depression (P = .003) and the descending degree of the ST-T segment of ECG (P = .0002); prolonging the total time of treadmill exercise (P < .00001) and the time of ST-segment depression of 1 mm (P = .002); enhancing the total effective rate of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) syndromes (P < .00001); improving endothelial function (P < .00001); and reducing the levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (P < .00001). BAD treatment showed no statistically significant effect on the levels of TNF-a (P = .8) or IL-6 (P = .13). No severe adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis shows that BADs are effective for the treatment of microvascular angina. Although concerns regarding selective bias and low methodological quality were raised, our findings suggest that BADs are beneficial for patients with microvascular angina and should be given priority for future clinical studies.