[Clinical Trials and Evaluation of Chinese Patent Medicine for Heart Failure].
Xiao-Lei Wu,Xiao-Yu Qiang,Zhao-Chen Ji,Hai-Yin Hu,Chao-Nan Feng,Dan-Lei Wang,De-Hui Peng,Lu-Jia Cao,Jun-Hua Zhang
DOI: https://doi.org/10.19540/j.cnki.cjcmm.20220210.501
2022-01-01
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
Abstract:The present study systematically collected, analyzed, and evaluated randomized controlled trial(RCT) of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of heart failure to provide references for follow-up clinical research design, guideline update, and policy formulation, and promote the improvement of clinical evidence quality. On the basis of the collection in the Traditional Chinese Medicine(TCM) Clinical Evidence Database System(EVDS), CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, SinoMed, PubMed, and Web of Science were searched for RCTs of Chinese patent medicine in the treatment of heart failure from database inception to December 31, 2020. The di-sease type, publication time, sample size, intervention/control setting, course of treatment, evaluation indexes, and methodological quality were analyzed and evaluated. A total of 1 631 RCTs were included, including 1 622 in Chinese and 9 in English. It was first published in 1995, with the largest number of publications in 2016. There were only 56 RCTs(3.43%) with a sample size≥200. Seventy-eight types of Chinese patent medicines were involved, including 49 types of oral drugs and 29 types of injections. There were 34 intervention/control protocols, which were dominated by Chinese patent medicine+conventional treatment vs conventional treatment, accounting for 28.51%(n=465). About 94.0% of RCTs reported the course of treatment, mainly 14-56 days. The evaluation indexes were mainly physical and chemical tests and symptoms/signs, and left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF) was the most frequently used measurement index. In enumeration indexes, clinical efficacy(response rate) was used the most frequently. Methodologically, 92.0% of the research subjects were rated as high risk of blindness. There were only 13 RCTs(0.80%) reporting registered information. It is necessary to further standardize the design, implementation, and quality control of clinical studies in order to improve the quality of evidence and avoid research waste.