4.5 Review

Traditional Chinese medicines in the management of cardiovascular diseases: a comprehensive systematic review

Journal

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 83, Issue 1, Pages 20-32

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.13013

Keywords

cardiovascular disease; coronary heart disease; hypertension; Traditional Chinese Medicine

Funding

  1. British Heart Foundation [FS/13/45/30345] Funding Source: Medline
  2. British Heart Foundation [FS/13/45/30345] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AIMS The aim was to perform a systematic review of the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicines (TCM) in cardiovascular disease. METHODS Electronic databases were searched up to 11 November 2015 for all randomized-controlled trials evaluating the effect of TCM in hypertension, ischaemic stroke, heart failure, coronary heart disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) were calculated using a fixed-effects model. RESULTS Four hypertension studies were eligible for statistical analysis and included 133 patients receiving TCMand 130 control patients. There were significant reductions in systolic blood pressure in patients receiving TCM, comparable to results achieved with pharmaceutical medicines. An OR of 3.781 (95% confidence interval 2.392, 5.977; P = 0.000) was observed for the antihypertensive effect of TCM. Significant heterogeneity was present (P = 0.011), with a tendency towards publication bias that did not reach significance (P = 0.05275). Outcome measures for other cardiovascular diseases were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS Certain TCM compounds appear to have significant anti-hypertensive effects, and although some are associated in some studies with improved outcomes in coronary heart disease, heart failure and type 2 diabetes mellitus, the data are inconsistent and will require large-scale randomized-controlled trials to allow full evaluation of any potential therapeutic benefit in these areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available