Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of Shexiang Tongxin Dripping Pills combined with conventional therapy of coronary heart disease / 中国中药杂志

ABSTRACT

The aim of the research was to evaluate the efficacy and safety associated with Shexiang Tongxin Dropping Pills combined with conventional therapy for patients with coronary heart disease(CHD). We searched 8 electronic databases up to November 2020, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and SinoMed. Eligible studies were clinical trials of Shexiang Tongxin Dropping Pills combined with conventional therapy used in the treatment of coronary heart disease(CHD). The Meta-analysis was performed using STATA 15 software. A total of 21 RCTs(n=2 186) were shortlisted for the Meta-analysis. The results of efficacy evaluation showed that the total effective rate of Shexiang Tongxin Dropping Pills combined with conventional therapy was higher than that of conventional therapy of coronary heart disease(RR=1.20, 95%CI[1.15, 1.26], Z=8.63, P<0.001). Furthermore, Shexiang Tongxin Dripping Pills combined with conventional therapy had better effect on electrocardiogram efficacy(RR=1.24, 95%CI[1.16, 1.34], Z=5.98, P<0.001) and the number of angina attacks(SMD=-2.30, 95%CI[-3.47,-1.14], Z=3.88, P<0.001), the duration of angina attack(SMD=-2.31, 95%CI[-3.07,-1.55], Z=5.97, P<0.001), with lower levels of LDL-C(SMD=-0.73, 95%CI[-1.32,-0.14], Z=2.42, P=0.016), TC(SMD=-1.16, 95%CI[-1.35,-0.96], Z=11.56, P<0.001) and TG(SMD=-0.87, 95%CI[-1.06,-0.68], Z=8.97, P<0.001), and higher levels of HDL-C(SMD=0.87, 95%CI[0.02, 1.71], Z=2.00, P=0.045). The results of safety evaluation showed that the incidence of adverse reactions of Shexiang Tongxin Dropping Pills combined with conventional therapy was lower than that of conventional therapy of coronary heart disease(RR=0.45, 95%CI[0.22, 0.91], Z=2.23, P=0.026). There were significant differences in the above outcome indexes between the two groups. After the Harbord method test, the total effective rate outcome index has publication bias, but the sensitivity analysis of the cut-and-fill method suggested that the result was stable. In general, limited by the quantity and quality of included literature, more high-quality studies are needed to further verify the conclusions of this study.