Objective. To compare the efficacy of three different traditional Chinese exercises (Tai Chi, Baduanjin, and Wuqinxi) combined with antihypertensive drugs (AHD) on patients with essential hypertension (EH). Method. Eight electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of traditional Chinese fitness exercises combined with AHD and AHD alone. The analysis mainly consists of network meta-analysis (NMA) and pairwise meta-analysis. The Cochrane assessment tool was adopted to assess the risk of bias of included literatures. This study used STATA/SE 15.1 (StataCorp, 2017), R software (version 4.0.1), and Cochrane’s Review Manager software (version 5.4) to conduct data analysis and figures generation. Results. A total of 30 RCTs were included in this study, of which 16 evaluated Tai Chi plus AHD versus AHD, 11 evaluated Baduanjin plus AHD versus AHD, and 3 evaluated Wuqinxi plus AHD versus AHD. No RCT compared directly among the three traditional Chinese fitness exercises. Pairwise meta-analysis showed that Tai Chi plus AHD was significantly superior to AHD alone in reducing systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). BDJ plus AHD was statistically superior to AHD alone in reducing SBP, DBP, and endothelin (ET) and increasing nitric oxide (NO). NMA results indicated that Tai Chi plus AHD (WMD −12.42 mmHg, 95% CI: −15.29 to −9.55) and Baduanjin plus AHD (WMD −7.03 mmHg, 95% CI: −9.80 to −4.26) were superior to AHD, and Tai Chi was more effective than other traditional exercises in lowering SBP, Tai Chi plus AHD (WMD −7.56 mmHg, 95% CI: −10.15 to −4.96) and Baduanjin plus AHD (WMD −4.51 mmHg, 95% CI: −7.38 to −1.65) were superior to AHD in reducing DBP, Baduanjin plus AHD (WMD 4.26 μmol/L, 95%CI: 2.68 to 5.83) was statistically superior to AHD in increasing NO, and Tai Chi plus AHD (WMD −7.64 pg/ml, 95% CI: −10.46 to −4.83) and Baduanjin plus AHD (WMD −9.23 pg/ml, 95% CI: −10.85 to −7.61) were superior to AHD in lowering ET. Conclusion. Compared with AHD alone, both Tai Chi plus AHD and Baduanjin plus AHD showed significant benefit in regulating SBP, DBP, and ET. Among the three traditional Chinese fitness exercises, Tai Chi may be the best as an adjunctive therapy for SBP reduction. These findings provided evidence for the therapeutic benefit of either Tai Chi or Baduanjin exercise as an adjunct therapy for patients with EH. Limited by the methodological quality and quantity of included studies, results need to be interpreted with caution, and it is necessary to carry out further high-quality RCTs on traditional Chinese fitness exercise-assisted treatment of EH in the future.
Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the effects of Panax notoginseng preparations (PNP) containing Panax Notoginseng Saponins (PNS) or Panaxatriol Saponin (PTS) on platelet aggregation and coagulation in the adjuvant treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD) and ischemic stroke (IS).Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the combination of PNP and aspirin (ASA) versus ASA alone for CHD or IS were searched in eight databases. Subgroup analysis was performed according to saponin category. When statistical heterogeneity was significant, sensitivity analysis was performed using the leave-one-out approach. Funnel plot, Egger’ test, and Begg’ test was adopted to detect publication bias.Results: Twenty RCTs involving 2216 patients were analyzed. Compared with ASA alone, PNP plus ASA had a stronger inhibitory effect on in PAgR [PNS, WMD = −6.10 (−7.25, −4.95), p < 0.00001; PTS, WMD = −3.53 (−4.68, −2.38), p < 0.00001]; PNS plus ASA better reduced FIB [WMD = −0.43 (−0.49, −0.36)] and DD [WMD = −0.59 (−0.67, −0.51), p < 0.00001], while PLT (p = 0.07) and PT (p = 0.34) were not significantly different; PTS plus ASA better prolonged PT [WMD = 1.90 (1.47, 2.32), p < 0.00001] and PT-INR [WMD = 0.22 (0.11, 0.32), p < 0.0001], whereas no significant difference in DD (p = 0.1) and bleeding-related events (positive fecal occult blood, p = 0.96; upper gastrointestinal bleeding, p = 0.67; subcutaneous hemorrhage, p = 0.51; bulbar conjunctival hemorrhage, p = 0.51; hematuria, p = 0.58). There was no significant difference between PNP plus ASA and ASA alone in terms of gastrointestinal side effect (PNS, p = 0.65; PTS, p = 0.56) and urticaria (PNS, p = 0.57; PTS, p = 0.55).Conclusion: PNP combined with ASA might produce stronger antiplatelet aggregation and anticoagulation effects without increasing bleeding risk, gastrointestinal side effects, and urticaria compared with ASA alone.Systematic Review Registration:https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/#recordDetails, identifier CRD42022339234.
BackgroundThis meta-analysis mainly aimed to compare the impact of prasugrel and ticagrelor on platelet reactivity (PR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).MethodsWe searched four electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing the impact of prasugrel and ticagrelor on PR in patients with ACS. We performed group analyses according to three detection methods, drug dose [loading dose (LD) and maintenance dose (MTD)] and LD effect time, and assessed the robustness of the results through sensitivity analysis.ResultsTwenty-five studies with 5,098 patients were eligible. After LD, the incidence of high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) of ticagrelor was significantly lower than that of prasugrel within 6–18 h based on vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) test [RR = 0.25 (0.07, 0.85), P = 0.03], there was no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in the following results: platelets inhibitory effect within 24–48 h based on VerifyNow P2Y12 (VN) assay (P = 0.11) and VASP test (P = 0.20), and the incidence of HTPR within 2–6 h based on VN assay (P = 0.57) and within 24–48 h based on VN assay (P = 0.46) and VASP test (P = 0.72), the incidence of low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LTPR) within 6–18 h based on VASP test (P = 0.46) and 48 h based on VN assay (P = 0.97) and VASP test (P = 0.73). After MTD, the platelet inhibitory effect of ticagrelor was stronger than that of prasugrel based on VN assay [WMD = −41.64 (−47.16, −36.11), P < 0.00001]and VASP test [WMD = −9.10 (−13.88, −4.32), P = 0.0002], the incidence of HTPR of ticagrelor was significantly lower than that of prasugrel based on VN assay [RR = 0.05 (0.02, 0.16), P < 0.00001], the incidence of LTPR of ticagrelor was significantly higher than prasugrel based on VN assay [RR = 6.54 (4.21, 10.14), P < 0.00001] and VASP test [RR = 2.65 (1.78, 3.96), P < 0.00001], the results of Multiple Electrode Aggregometry (MEA) test was inconsistent with the other two detection methods in platelet inhibitory effect and the incidence of HTPR and LTPR. There was no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in the following clinical outcomes: all-cause death (P = 0.86), cardiovascular death (P = 0.49), myocardial infarction (P = 0.67), stroke (P = 0.51), target vessel revascularization (P = 0.51), stent thrombosis (P = 0.90), TIMI major bleeding (P = 0.86) and bleeding BARC type ≥ 2 (P = 0.77). The risk of bleeding BARC type 1 of ticagrelor was significantly higher than prasugrel [RR = 1.44 (1.03, 2.02), P = 0.03].ConclusionsCompared with prasugrel, ticagrelor might have a stronger platelet inhibition effect, with a lower incidence of HTPR and a higher incidence of LTPR and bleeding BARC type 1, while there might be no significant difference in the risk of thrombosis/ischemic, bleeding BARC Type ≥ 2 and TIMI major bleeding. A higher incidence of LTPR might indicate a higher risk of bleeding BARC type 1. The results of VN assay were consistent with that of VASP test, and not with the MEA test.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022304205, identifier: CRD42022304205.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.