Effect of Chinese herbal compounds on ocular fundus signs and vision in conventional treated-persons with non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Background: Changes in fundus signs and loss of visual acuity are an important basis for screening and treating diabetic patients with retinopathy, and conventional Western medicine is moderately effective in treating diabetic retinopathy(DR),To systematically evaluate the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal compounds(CHCs) in the combined treatment of diabetic retinopathy.

Method: Six electronic databases, including PubMed, were searched to screen eligible literature. Randomized controlled trials of non-proliferative diabetic retinopathy(NPDR) were included, in which the control group was treated with conventional Western-based drugs or retinal laser photocoagulation, and the intervention group was treated with CHCs in combination based on the control group.The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to evaluate the quality of the literature, and the RevMan 5.4 software was used for statistical analysis.

Results: Compared with Conventional group alone,CHCs group was superior at improving clinical efficacy [RR=1.29, 95%CI=(1.23, 1.36),P<0.01] and best corrected visual acuity(BCVA) [MD=0.10,95%CI=(0.09,0.12),P<0.01],it was also superior at reducing the number of microangiomas [MD=-2.37, 95%CI=(-3.26, -1.49),P<0.01], microangioma volume [MD=-4.72, 95%CI=(-5.14, -4.29), P<0.01], hemorrhagic spots [MD=-2.05, 95%CI=(-2.51,-1.59), P<0.01], hemorrhagic area [MD=-0.76, 95%CI=(-1.06, -0.47), P<0.01], hard exudates [MD= -1.86, 95%CI=(-2.43, -1.28), P<0.01], cotton lint spots [MD= -0.93, 95%CI= (-1.31, -0.55), P<0.01], central macular thickness(CMT) [SMD=-1.52, 95%CI=(-1.85, -1.19),P<0.01], Chinese medicine evidence score [SMD=-1.33,95%CI=(-1.58, -1.08),P<0.01], fasting blood glucose (FBG) [SMD=-0.47, 95%CI=(-0.61,-0.33),P<0.01], 2h postprandial blood glucose(2hPBG) [SMD=-0.87, 95% CI=(-1.06, -0.67), P<0.01], glycosylated hemoglobin (HbAlc) [SMD=-0.76, 95%CI=(-1.16, -0.3),P<0.01], total cholesterol(TC) [SMD=-0.33,95%CI=(-0.51,-0.16),P<0.01],and CHCs group with less adverse events occurred [RR=0.46, 95%CI=(0.29, 0.74),P<0.01].

Conclusion: CHCs combined with conventional medicine for NPDR has better clinical efficacy and higher safety, but the above findings need further validation in more large sample, multicenter, and low-bias RCTs due to the limitation of the quality and quantity of included literature.

Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022342137.

Keywords: Chinese and Western medicine combination; Chinese medicine compounds; diabetic retinopathy; meta-analysis (as topic); safety evaluation.

Figure 1

PubMed literature search strategy.

Figure 2

Flow chart of literature screening.

Figure 3

Risk of bias assessment graph for included RCTs.

Figure 4

Distribution of risk of bias of included RCTs.

Figure 5

Forest plot of total efficiency rate comparison.

Figure 6

Forest plot of BCVA.

Figure 7

Forest plot of TCM syndrome integral comparison.

Figure 8

Forest plot of TNF-α comparison.

Figure 9

Forest plot of comparative adverse reactions.

Figure 10

(A) Publication bias funnel plot of total clinical response rate. (B) Published bias funnel plot of BCVA