A one-year evaluation of radiographic progression in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated by Qingre Huoxue Decoction ()

Traditional Chinese Medicine Qingre Huoxue Treatment vs. the Combination of Methotrexate and Hydroxychloroquine for Active Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Multicenter, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been used successfully to treat rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Qingre Huoxue treatment (Qingre Huoxue decoction (QRHXD)/Qingre Huoxue external preparation (QRHXEP)) is a therapeutic scheme of TCM for RA. To date, there have been few studies comparing the efficacy and safety of QRHXD and conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for the treatment of active RA. This was investigated in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial involving 468 Chinese patients with active RA [disease activity score (DAS)-28 > 3.2] treated with QRHXD/QRHXEP (TCM group), methotrexate plus hydroxychloroquine [Western medicine (WM) group], or both [integrative medicine (IM) group]. Patients were followed up for 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure was the change in DAS-28 from baseline to 24 weeks. The secondary outcome measures were treatment response rate according to American College of Rheumatology 20, 50, and 70% improvement criteria (ACR-20/50/70) and the rate of treatment-related adverse events (TRAEs). The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02551575). DAS-28 decreased in all three groups after treatment (p < 0.0001); the score was lowest in the TCM group (p < 0.05), while no difference was observed between the WM and IM groups (p > 0.05). At week 24, ACR-20 response was 73.04% with TCM, 80.17% with WM, and 73.95% with IM (based on the full analysis set [FAS], p > 0.05); ACR-50 responses were 40.87, 47.93, and 51.26%, respectively, (FAS, p > 0.05); and ACR-70 responses were 20.87, 22.31, and 25.21%, respectively, (FAS, p > 0.05). Thus, treatment efficacy was similar across groups based on ACR criteria. On the other hand, the rate of TRAEs was significantly lower in the TCM group compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). Thus, QRHXD/QRHXEP was effective in alleviating the symptoms of active RA—albeit to a lesser degree than csDMARDs—with fewer side effects. Importantly, combination with QRHXD enhanced the efficacy of csDMARDs. These results provide evidence that QRHXD can be used as an adjunct to csDMARDs for the management of RA, especially in patients who experience TRAEs with standard drugs.

Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCTNCT025515.

The Bone-Protecting Efficiency of Chinese Medicines Compared With Western Medicines in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Comparative Studies

Background: Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) is a systemic autoimmune disease leading to joint destruction. The prevention of bone and cartilage destruction has received increased attention in recent years. Objective: To evaluate the current evidences regarding the bone-protecting efficacy of Chinese medicine or the combination of Chinese medicine and Western medicine for RA. Methods: We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library (www.thecochranelibrary.com), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), the Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals (VIP), and SinoMed. We then performed a systematic review and cumulative meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the two therapy methods. Results: Sixteen studies including 1,171 patients were included in the final analysis. The results showed that Chinese medicine could significantly improve the bone mineral density (BMD) (mean difference [MD] = 0.05 /g·cm-2, 95% CI [0.03, 0.08], P < 0.00001), and decrease the serum matrix metalloproteinase 3 (MMP-3) ([SMD] = -2.84, 95% CI [-4.22, -1.47], P < 0.0001). Conclusions: Chinese medicine may provide an efficiently alternative choice for the treatment of RA in terms of the bone-protecting efficiency. Given the inherent limitations of the included studies, future well-designed RCTs are required to confirm and update the findings of this analysis.

Application of Traditional Chinese Medicine in medical practice: a survey of community residents in Beijing, China

OBJECTIVE

To investigate how community residents in Beijing understood and used Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in their medical practice.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study conducted on 3410 community residents from four large communities of Tongzhou district in Beijng, China. A validated, self-administered questionnaire comprised of three sections was used to gather the data. A systematic sampling procedure was applied to recruit the community residents.

RESULTS

A total of 3410 participants completed the questionnaire survey. It showed that in highly educated residents, 33.4% (170) knew of the names of 3-10 Chinese herbals, 35.8% (182) knew of names of 3-10 traditional Chinese patent drug. Among all the respondent residents, 80.7% (2753) believed that TCM herbal therapy and TCM non-drug treatments were effective in disease treatment, health enhancement, 85.7% (2923) had taken traditional Chinese patent drug in their life, 56.8% (1937) of residents had used herbal decoction, 40.0% (1365) had received non-drug treatment of TCM, such as acupuncture, massage, cupping, auricular acupuncture. Among the elderly residents, 11.4% (98) often used Chinese patent drug and 9.8% (85) often used herbal decoction. In addition, 70.8% (2415) of residents were willing to accept knowledge and information on TCM for health enhancement and disease prevention, such as medicated diet, medicinal tea, Tai Chi and Qi Gong, although 82.8% (2825) of residents had never used them.

CONCLUSION

Chinese patent drug and herbal decoction are widely used in the communities in Beijing, and there existed a possible close correlation between high educational level and better understanding of TCM. Age and occupation also correlated with the attitude to TCM therapies. The characteristics of the residents should be considered seriously in the course of promoting the understanding and application of TCM.

Systematic review of the methodological quality of controlled trials evaluating Chinese herbal medicine in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

OBJECTIVES

We appraised the methodological and reporting quality of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

DESIGN

For this systematic review, electronic databases were searched from inception until June 2015. The search was limited to humans and non-case report studies, but was not limited by language, year of publication or type of publication. Two independent reviewers selected RCTs, evaluating CHM in RA (herbals and decoctions). Descriptive statistics were used to report on risk of bias and their adherence to reporting standards. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine study characteristics associated with high or unclear risk of bias.

RESULTS

Out of 2342 unique citations, we selected 119 RCTs including 18 919 patients: 10 108 patients received CHM alone and 6550 received one of 11 treatment combinations. A high risk of bias was observed across all domains: 21% had a high risk for selection bias (11% from sequence generation and 30% from allocation concealment), 85% for performance bias, 89% for detection bias, 4% for attrition bias and 40% for reporting bias. In multivariable analysis, fewer authors were associated with selection bias (allocation concealment), performance bias and attrition bias, and earlier year of publication and funding source not reported or disclosed were associated with selection bias (sequence generation). Studies published in non-English language were associated with reporting bias. Poor adherence to recommended reporting standards (<60% of the studies not providing sufficient information) was observed in 11 of the 23 sections evaluated.

LIMITATIONS

Study quality and data extraction were performed by one reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. Translation to English was performed by one reviewer in 85% of the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies evaluating CHM often fail to meet expected methodological criteria, and high-quality evidence is lacking.