Efficacy and safety of Chinese patent medicines combined with conventional therapies for endometriosis: A systematic review and bayesian network meta-analysis

Abstract

Ethnopharmacological relevance

Conventional hormonal treatments for endometriosis (EMs) are often associated with significant side effects. In recent years, many clinical trials and studies have highlighted the remarkable efficacy of Chinese patent medicines (CPMs) in alleviating endometriosis-related pain, reducing CA125 markers, regulating hormone levels, and preventing symptom recurrence. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted on CPMs such as Shaofu Zhuyu Decoction (SZD), Dan'e Fukang Plaster (DFP), Sanjie Zhentong Capsule (SZC), Guizhi Fuling Capsule (GFC), Xiaojin Capsule (XC), Gongliu Xiao Capsule (GLXC), Xuefu Zhuyu Capsule (XZC), Jingtong Yushu Granule (JYG), Zhitong Huazheng Capsule (ZHC), and Kuntai Capsule (KTC) for the treatment of endometriosis. However, these studies have yet to be evaluated through a network meta-analysis (NMA) compliant with PRISMA standards.

Aim of the study

This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ten CPMs for treating EMs through a NMA on RCTs.

Materials and methods

PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, WanFang, and China Biomedicine databases were searched up to October 2024 for studies on the efficacy and safety of CPMs in treating EMs. Two researchers independently screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool and the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. The NMA was conducted using Bayesian methods with StataSE and Rstudio, generating network diagrams, league tables, and Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) line charts. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023477523).

Results

148 eligible trials involving 10 CPMs and 16198 participants were included in this NMA; all subsequent estimates refer to the comparison with conventional therapies. All 10 CPMs effectively improved the total effective rate and VAS pain scores. SZC induced the most significant improvement in total effective rate(compared to hormone therapy: risk ratio 5.51, 95% confidence interval 4.21 to 7.2, SUCRA 86.3%, moderate confidence of evidence; compared to GnRH-a: 4.74, (3.18–7), moderate confidence of evidence). DFP proved to be the most effective CPM for lowering the VAS pain scores. (compared to hormone therapy: mean difference −2.1, (−2.94 to −1.29), 78.8%, moderate confidence of evidence; and GnRH-a (−2.07, (−2.73 to −1.41), low confidence of evidence). Moreover, this study demonstrated the safety of CPMs, particularly in reducing hormonal and liver-related side effects. Specific CPMs like XZC, SZC, DFP, KTC, and GFC showed markedly lower relative risks of adverse events when compared to conventional therapies.

Conclusion

Chinese patent medicine may effectively treat EMs, excelling in total effective rate, pain relief, CA125 reduction, and safety. Nevertheless, these findings are preliminary and require validation through high-quality studies.