机构:[1]The China‐Australia International Research Centre for Chinese Medicine, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia[2]Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences and Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China广东省中医院[3]School of Science, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
ObjectivesTo evaluate the clinical evidence for traditional medicines (TMs) used in East Asia on measures of cognition in Alzheimer disease, determine the effect sizes at different time points for the TMs and pharmacotherapies, and assess the tolerability of the TMs. MethodsWe searched 12 databases in English, Chinese, and Japanese for eligible randomised controlled trials that compared orally administered TMs with pharmacotherapy and reported cognitive outcomes. Meta-analyses were conducted for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale and/or Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). Mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated to evaluate treatment effects. ResultsThirty randomised controlled trials met inclusion criteria. Twenty-nine compared TMs with donepezil. Single studies provided comparisons with galantamine, rivastigmine, or memantine. There were no significant differences between the TM and donepezil groups at 12 or 24weeks for Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale or MMSE. Improvements over baseline were significant for MMSE at 12 and 24weeks within the TM and donepezil groups and remained significant at 1year. Effect sizes were reduced in the 3 double-blind studies. At 24weeks, donepezil 10mg/d generally produced greater improvements in MMSE than 5mg/d. Tolerability reporting was incomplete and inconsistent between studies. ConclusionsThe results suggested that the clinical benefits of the TMs were not less than donepezil at comparable time points, with both groups showing improvements. However, lack of blinding in most studies and other design and measurement issues are likely to have resulted in overestimation of effect sizes in both groups. Further well-designed studies are needed.
基金:
China‐Australia International Research Centre
for Chinese Medicine, Grant/Award Number:
N/A
第一作者机构:[1]The China‐Australia International Research Centre for Chinese Medicine, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia
通讯作者:
通讯机构:[1]The China‐Australia International Research Centre for Chinese Medicine, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC, Australia[2]Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences and Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China[*1]Executive Dean, School of Health and Biomedical Sciences, RMIT University, PO Box 71, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia.[*2]Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences and Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, China.
推荐引用方式(GB/T 7714):
May Brian H.,Feng Mei,Hyde Anna J.,et al.Comparisons between traditional medicines and pharmacotherapies for Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes[J].INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY.2018,33(3):449-458.doi:10.1002/gps.4830.
APA:
May, Brian H.,Feng, Mei,Hyde, Anna J.,Hugel, Helmut,Chang, Su-yueh...&Xue, Charlie C..(2018).Comparisons between traditional medicines and pharmacotherapies for Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes.INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY,33,(3)
MLA:
May, Brian H.,et al."Comparisons between traditional medicines and pharmacotherapies for Alzheimer disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis of cognitive outcomes".INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC PSYCHIATRY 33..3(2018):449-458