| Literature DB >> 35035507 |
Ying Yu1, Gong Zhang2, Tao Han3, Hongjie Liu4, Hailiang Huang5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Poststroke depression (PSD) is a serious complication of clinical cerebrovascular disease. Patients not only have depression-related emotional symptoms but also have physical symptoms, such as autonomic dysfunction. At the same time, patients with varying degrees of depression will delay the neurological function of stroke patients. The recovery time of cognitive function and limb function will increase the risk of accidental death and even aggravate the mortality of cerebrovascular disease. Through combining data analysis and related literature, seven types of Chinese patent medicines (CPMs) widely used in the clinical treatment of PSD have been screened out. These herbs exhibit some clinical comparability under the conditions that the syndrome type and dosage form are relatively uniform. Therefore, in this study, the network meta-analysis method was used to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the seven CPMs screened out, and the probability ranking was performed to screen the best clinical auxiliary treatment plan of CPM.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35035507 PMCID: PMC8758270 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7265769
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1A flowchart of literature screening.
Basic information included in the study.
| Included study | Cases (T/C) | Age | Intervention measures | Course of treatment (d) | Outcome indicators | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Test group (T) | Control group (C) | |||||
| Han xuqing 2014 [ | 28/30 | 59.29 ± 10.4 | Wuling capsules 2 capsules, bid + Citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | Citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | 24 | ①② |
| Wu yuhong 2013[ | 35/35 | 55∼77 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, bid | Dealixin 1 tablet, bid | 56 | ①② |
| Guo ying 2013[ | 95/95 | 68.14 ± 7.62 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, bid | Dealixin 1 tablet, bid | 42 | ①②③④ |
| Mo shaozhen 2015[ | 69/69 | 45∼75 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | 42 | ①② |
| Ma yunzhi 2012 [ | 30/30 | 64.8 ± 9.3 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | 42 | ①②③④ |
| Zhou hongye 2015 [ | 34/32 | 47∼74 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | 84 | ①⑤ |
| Chen liang 2015 [ | 34/34 | 46∼75 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | 42 | ①② |
| Zhang lili 2010 [ | 45/45 | 45∼74 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | 42 | ①② |
| Liang yuan 2014 [ | 30/30 | 55.12 ± 5.2 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | Dealixin 1 tablet, tid | 42 | ①② |
| Zhang danni 2016 [ | 50/50 | 52∼77 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①② |
| Ma binfeng 2017 [ | 63/63 | 58∼86 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Shi qi 2008 [ | 30/26 | 46∼82 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①② |
| Kou jianhua 2019 [ | 40/40 | 42∼75 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 84 | ①②④ |
| Kong xiangfang 2014 [ | 38/38 | 43∼76 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①②④ |
| Yuan jun 2014 [ | 85/85 | 45∼75 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 28 | ①②④ |
| Wan ailan 2006 [ | 35/35 | 59.23 ± 8.3 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①② |
| Liu junqiong 2014 [ | 32/32 | 52∼78 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Xie yan 2018 [ | 49/49 | 52∼78 | Wuling capsules 3 capsules, tid + Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①②③④ |
| Zhou peng 2017 [ | 34/34 | 18∼68 | Xiaoyao pill 8 pills, tid + Venlafaxine 75 mg/d, qd | Venlafaxine 75 mg/d, qd | 28 | ①② |
| Wang jianqiang 2014 [ | 60/52 | 45∼75 | Xiaoyao pill 8 pills, tid + Deanxit 1 tablet, bid | Deanxit 1 tablet, bid | 42 | ①②③ |
| Zou lihua 2009 [ | 30/30 | 67.9 ± 6.1 | Xiaoyao pill 8 pills, tid + Deanxit 1 tablet, bid | Deanxit 1 tablet, bid | 42 | ①② |
| Ceng miaolin 2018 [ | 43/43 | 33∼79 | Xiaoyao pill 8 pills, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 28 | ①② |
| Jiang limin 2019 [ | 74/74 | 36∼76 | Danzhi Xiaoyao powder 3 g/d, bid + Citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | Citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | 28 | ①② |
| Xu erping 2006 [ | 35/35 | 55.2 ± 1.9 | Danzhi Xiaoyao powder 6 g/d, bid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Wang zongyuan 2008 [ | 36/36 | 55∼79 | Danzhi Xiaoyao powder 6 g/d, bid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 84 | ①② |
| Zhang yumao 2014 [ | 40/40 | 47∼73 | Danzhi Xiaoyao powder 6 g/d, bid + Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①②③ |
| Peng xianwen 2014 [ | 49/49 | 45∼78 | Danzhi Xiaoyao powder 6 g/d, bid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 28 | ①② |
| Cui yi 2016 [ | 30/30 | 45∼80 | Chaihu Shugan powder granules + citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | Citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①②④ |
| Wen jun 2015 [ | 60/60 | 50∼83 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Mirtazapine 30 mg/d, qd | Mirtazapine 30 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①②③④ |
| Chen aijun 2013 [ | 39/39 | 49∼78 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①③ |
| Hou jihong 2015 [ | 36/36 | 69.3 ± 7.5 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Wu hongyi 2015 [ | 40/40 | 50∼65 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Deanxit 1 tablet, qd | Deanxit 1 tablet, qd | 28 | ①② |
| Zhao zheng 2013 [ | 40/40 | 43∼75 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①② |
| Ding na 2014 [ | 40/40 | 56.42 ± 5.18 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Na wanqiu 2012 [ | 41/39 | 71.12 ± 5.51 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①②③ |
| Hu jun 2013 [ | 45/44 | 56.42 ± 5.18 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①② |
| Tan hongyang 2018 [ | 62/62 | 52∼73 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 21 | ①②③④ |
| Lu yi 2015 [ | 65/65 | 45∼72 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Olanzapine 2.5 mg/d, qd | Olanzapine 2.5 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Xu ming 2012 [ | 65/65 | 55∼74 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Venlafaxine 75 mg/d, bid | Venlafaxine 75 mg/d, bid | 42 | ①② |
| Liu wei 2016 [ | 38/38 | 50∼75 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsule, bid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①②③ |
| Chen wei 2014 [ | 58/57 | 45∼73 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Venlafaxine 75 mg/d, bid | Venlafaxine 75 mg/d, bid | 42 | ①③ |
| Yi kunchang 2018 [ | 48/48 | 48∼77 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Pan zhenshan 2014 [ | 42/42 | 65.12 ± 8.35 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Mirtazapine 30 mg/d, qd | Mirtazapine 30 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①②③ |
| Li junling 2013 [ | 27/27 | 49∼75 | Shugan Jieyu capsule 2 capsules, bid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Xie yan 2017 [ | 45/45 | 55∼70 | Jieyu Anshen granules 5 g, bid + Deanxit 1 pill, qd | Deanxit 1 pill, qd | 42 | ①② |
| Xia junbo 2013 [ | 40/40 | 34∼72 | Jieyu Anshen granules 5 g, bid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Mu ying 2014 [ | 48/48 | 40∼78 | Yangxue Qingnao granules 4 g/d, tid + Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Paroxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 28 | ①④ |
| Jiang guohua 2018 [ | 60/60 | 60∼77 | Yangxue Qingnao granules 4 g/d, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①②③④ |
| Huang xiaohong 2012 [ | 50/50 | 61.5 ± 7.8 | Yangxue Qingnao granules 4 g/d, tid + Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Pan dong 2014 [ | 38/41 | 60∼75 | Yangxue Qingnao granules 4 g/d, tid + Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | Sertraline 50 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Ceng zhaofu 2013 [ | 34/34 | 41∼75 | Yangxue Qingnao granules 4 g/d, tid + Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | Fluoxetine 20 mg/d, qd | 56 | ①② |
| Wang xuejun 2017 [ | 32/32 | 61.37 ± 6.26 | Yangxue Qingnao granules 4 g/d, tid + Citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | Citalopram 10 mg/d, qd | 42 | ①②③ |
① Total effective rate; ② HAMD score (Hamilton Depression Scale); ③ TESS total score (adverse reactions); ④ NIHSS score (neurological deficit score). The intervention measures were based on the routine treatment of stroke..
Figure 2Bias risk assessment for inclusion in the study.
Figure 3Evidence network diagram of CPMs in the auxiliary treatment of PSD. All abbreviations of CPM represent the combination group of CPM combined with western medicine, rather than CPM alone (code A: Wuling capsule combined with western medicine, B: Xiaoyao pill combined with western drugs, D: Danzhi Xiaoyao pill combined with western drugs, E: Chaihu Shugan powder combined with western drugs, F: Shugan Jieyu capsule combined with western medicine, H: Jieyu Anshen capsule combined with western medicine, I: Yangxue Qingnao granule combined with western medicine. K: blank control; this blank control refers to the type of CPM combined with western drug/positive control drug applied in the study, that is, the dosage and method of administration of the two groups of western medicine/positive control drug are consistent, so it belongs to the blank control trial design).
Results of network meta-analysis.
| Therapeutic method | Clinical effective rate | HAMD score | NIHSS score | TESS score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method 1 | Method 2 | ||||
| Wuling capsule | Xiaoyao pill | 1.08[0.44,2.38] | 1.24[−0.88,3.38] | — | 1.05[0.04,6.21] |
| Danzhi Xiaoyao pill | 1.14[0.56,2.32] | −0.17[−2.30,1.80] | — | 1.31[0.08,2.00] | |
| Chaihu Shugan powder | 1.40[0.13,8.00] | −0.28[−5.07,4.61] | −2.62[−8.57,3.19] | — | |
| Shugan Jieyu capsule | 1.11[0.68,1.86] | 0.26[−1.09,1.64] | 1.10[−3.31,5.56] | 0.84[0.16,4.36] | |
| Jieyu Anshen capsule | 0.87[0.22,2.88] | −1.94[−4.66,0.90] | — | — | |
| Yangxue Qingnao granule | 1.76[0.93,3.26] | −1.29[−3.24,0.66] | 0.50[−3.86,4.86] | 0.78[0.08,6.23] | |
| Blank control | 4.35[3.03,6.26] | −3.95[−4.88,−3.00] | −3.25[−5.46,−1.05] | 0.22[0.05,0.79] | |
|
| |||||
| Xiaoyao pill | Danzhi Xiaoyao pill | 1.08[0.38,2.91] | −1.40[−4.18,1.15] | — | 1.23[0.01,6.62] |
| Chaihu Shugan powder | 1.27[0.11,8.52] | −1.50[−6.64,3.65] | — | — | |
| Shugan Jieyu capsule | 1.05[0.47,2.45] | −0.97[−3.14,1.20] | — | 0.80[0.02,9.13] | |
| Jieyu Anshen capsule | 0.82[0.16,3.07] | −3.18[−6.42,0.07] | — | — | |
| Yangxue Qingnao granule | 1.63[0.69,4.15] | −2.54[−5.08,0.04] | — | 0.73[0.01,2.65] | |
| Blank control | 4.05[1.98,9.03] | −5.19[−7.07,−3.27] | — | 0.21[0.01,4.14] | |
|
| |||||
| Danzhi Xiaoyao pill | Chaihu Shugan powder | 1.21[0.12,7.34] | −0.10[−5.11,5.03] | — | — |
| Shugan Jieyu capsule | 0.98[0.49,2.02] | 0.43[−1.59,2.61] | — | 0.65[0.05,8.75] | |
| Jieyu Anshen capsule | 0.74[0.16,2.61] | −1.77[−4.82,1.60] | — | — | |
| Yangxue Qingnao granule | 1.55[0.70,3.36] | −1.13[−3.57,1.48] | — | 0.59[0.03,11.33] | |
| Blank control | 3.81[2.09,7.03] | −3.78[−5.55,−1.84] | — | 0.17[0.01,1.78] | |
|
| |||||
| Chaihu Shugan powder | Shugan Jieyu capsule | 0.81[0.14,8.57] | 0.55[−4.31,5.35] | 3.72[−2.84,10.49] | — |
| Jieyu Anshen capsule | 0.62[0.07,9.94] | −1.62[−7.06,3.70] | — | — | |
| Yangxue Qingnao granule | 1.29[0.21,13.68] | −1.03[−6.04,4.03] | 3.14[−3.39,9.76] | — | |
| Blank control | 3.12[0.57,8.97] | −3.65[−8.45,1.05] | −0.63[−5.99,4.87] | — | |
|
| |||||
| Shugan Jieyu capsule | Jieyu Anshen capsule | 0.77[0.18,2.88] | −2.20[−5.00,0.66] | — | — |
| Yangxue Qingnao granule | 1.56[0.84,3.18] | −1.57[−3.55,0.46] | −0.60[−6.06,4.86] | 0.93[0.14,5.67] | |
| Blank control | 3.87[2.77,6.05] | −4.22[−5.23,−3.17] | −4.37[−8.19,−0.57] | 0.26[0.10,0.58] | |
|
| |||||
| Jieyu Anshen capsule | Yangxue Qingnao granule | 2.03[0.60,8.83] | 0.65[−2.44,3.76] | — | — |
| Blank control | 5.00[1.72,9.48] | −2.00[−4.67,0.56] | — | — | |
|
| |||||
| Yangxue Qingnao granule | Blank control | 2.47[1.50,4.27] | −2.65[−4.37,−0.97] | −3.76[−7.56,0.03] | 0.28[0.05,1.42] |
Ranking list of different interventions.
| Intervention measures | Clinical effective rate | HAMD score | NIHSS score | TESS score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wuling capsule | 0.10 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| Xiaoyao pill | 0.14 | 0.00 | 0.14 | — |
| Danzhi Xiaoyao pill | 0.07 | 0.00 | 0.05 | — |
| Chaihu Shugan powder | 0.25 | 0.05 | — | 0.39 |
| Shugan Jieyu capsule | 0.06 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Jieyu Anshen capsule | 0.39 | 0.06 | — | — |
| Yangxue Qingnao granule | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 0.02 |
| Blank control | 0.00 | 0.88 | 0.75 | 0.58 |
Figure 4Ranking diagram of different outcome indicators for each intervention: (a) total effective rate; (b) HAMD score; (c) NIHSS score; (d) TESS total score. The higher the total effective rate (Rank 1), the greater the effects. The smaller the HAMD, NIHSS, and TESS (Rank 1), the greater the effects.