Efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine for chronic prostatitis associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes: a meta-analysis and literature review
Authors Wang Z, Yuan L, Wang Y, Yang B, Dong X, Gao Z
Received 17 March 2016
Accepted for publication 27 June 2016
Published 19 September 2016 Volume 2016:10 Pages 1889—1902
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Dr Naifeng Liu
Zhiqiang Wang,1 Lei Yuan,1 Yongchuan Wang,2 Baizhi Yang,1 Xiaohong Dong,1 Zhaowang Gao3
1Department of Urology, Shouguang Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shouguang, 2Department of Urology, Weifang Traditional Chinese Hospital, Weifang, 3Department of Urology, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Shandong, People’s Republic of China
Objective: The aim of this meta-analysis and systematic review is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for chronic prostatitis (CP) associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes.
Methods: An electronic search of 13 databases up to May 2016 was screened to identify randomized controlled trials comparing the safety and efficacy of CHM for the treatment of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes. Studies reporting on effective rates, adverse events, National Institutes of Health chronic prostatitis symptom index (NIH-CPSI) scores, and symptom index of Chinese medicine for chronic prostatitis (SI-CM) scores as outcomes were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed by fixed- or random-effect models using the Review Manager software.
Results: Thirteen articles with the modified Jadad score ≥4 were identified. It was found that CHM was superior to placebo in increasing the efficacy (odds ratio: 6.72, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.78–9.48, P<0.00001) and reducing the SI-CM scores (standardized mean difference: -1.08, 95% CI: -1.35 to -0.81, P<0.00001). Oral CHMs were significantly more effective than placebo at reducing NIH-CPSI scores, with a mean difference of -1.39 (95% CI: -1.87 to -0.92, P<0.00001). Nevertheless, no significant differences were found between Prostant and placebo (standardized mean difference: -0.23, 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.01, P=0.06). The frequency of adverse events associated with oral CHM was similar to that associated with placebo (risk ratio: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.72–2.55, P=0.34) and less than that associated with Prostant (risk ratio: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.14–2.34, P=0.008).
Conclusion: Our novel analysis demonstrates that CHM ranks highest in terms of improvement of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes. While Prostant showed some efficacy in this disorder, it was associated with a smaller reduction in NIH-CPSI scores. In conclusion, CHM monotherapy is safe and effective for the treatment of CP associated with damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes.
Keywords: chronic prostatitis, meta-analysis, damp-heat and blood-stasis syndromes, traditional Chinese medicine
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]