Stewart Marlene, Morling Joanne R, Maxwell Heather
Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Medical School, Teviot Place, Edinburgh, UK, EH8 9AG.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Mar 29;3(3):CD007371. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007371.pub3.
Intermittent claudication (IC) is pain caused by chronic occlusive arterial disease that develops in a limb during exercise and is relieved with rest. Most drug treatments of IC have a limited effect in improving walking distance. Padma 28, a Tibetan herbal preparation, has been used to treat IC, but there is debate as to whether Padma 28 produces a clinical benefit beyond the placebo effect. This is an update of a review first published in 2013.
To determine whether Padma 28 is effective, compared with placebo or other medications, in increasing pain-free and maximum walking distance for patients with intermittent claudication.
For this update the Cochrane Vascular Trials Search Co-ordinator searched the Specialised Register (September 2015), the Cochrane Register of Studies ((CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 8)) and clinical trials databases.
Randomised controlled trials of Padma 28 compared with placebo or other pharmacological treatments in people suffering from IC.
All review authors independently assessed the selected studies and extracted the data. Risk of bias was evaluated independently by two review authors. Depending on the data provided in the individual trials, we extracted mean or median walking distance at the end of the trial, or change in walking distance over the course of the trial, or both. Where not provided, and whenever possible, the statistical significance of differences in these parameters between treatment and placebo groups in individual trials was calculated. Where possible, data were combined by meta-analysis.
No new trials were identified in the search for this review update. In total five trials involving 365 participants were included in this review. All trials compared Padma 28 with placebo for at least 16 weeks of follow-up. Pain-free and maximum walking distances both increased significantly in the groups treated with Padma 28, with no significant change in the placebo group. In general, the studies presented results comparing the treatment arms before and after treatment but made no comparisons between the Padma 28 and placebo groups. Pooled data of maximum walking distance after treatment with Padma 28 and placebo from two studies (193 participants) indicated a higher maximum walking distance (mean difference (MD) 95.97 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 79.07 m to 112.88 m, P < 0.00001, very low quality evidence) in the Padma 28 group compared with placebo. The clinical importance of these observed changes in walking distance is unclear as no quality of life data were reported. There was no effect on ankle brachial index (ABI): change in ABI values between baseline and six months follow up MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.05, 1 study, 56 participants, P = 0.72, very low quality evidence). Mild side effects, especially gastrointestinal discomfort, tiredness and skin eruption, were reported but this outcome was not different between the Padma 28 and placebo groups (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.83, four studies, 231 participants, P = 0.86, very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Some evidence exists from individual trials to suggest that Padma 28 may be effective in increasing walking distances, at least in the short term (four months), in people with IC. Side effects do not appear to be a problem. However, the longer term effects of treatment are unknown and the clinical significance of the improvements in walking distance are questionable. Moreover, the quality of the evidence is limited by the small sample size of the available trials, limited reporting of statistical analyses that compared treatment groups, and relatively high withdrawal rates that were linked to the outcome. That is, patients were withdrawn if they failed to improve walking distance. There was also evidence of publication bias. We therefore feel there is currently insufficient evidence to draw conclusions regards the effectiveness of Padma 28 in the routine management of IC. Further well-designed research would be required to determine the true effects of this herbal preparation.
间歇性跛行(IC)是由慢性闭塞性动脉疾病引起的疼痛,在运动期间肢体出现,休息后缓解。大多数IC的药物治疗在改善步行距离方面效果有限。Padma 28是一种藏药制剂,已用于治疗IC,但对于Padma 28是否能产生超出安慰剂效应的临床益处存在争议。这是2013年首次发表的一篇综述的更新。
确定与安慰剂或其他药物相比,Padma 28对于增加间歇性跛行患者的无痛步行距离和最大步行距离是否有效。
对于本次更新,Cochrane血管试验搜索协调员检索了专业注册库(2015年9月)、Cochrane研究注册库((CENTRAL)(2015年第8期))和临床试验数据库。
Padma 28与安慰剂或其他药物治疗IC患者的随机对照试验。
所有综述作者独立评估所选研究并提取数据。两名综述作者独立评估偏倚风险。根据各个试验提供的数据,我们提取试验结束时的平均或中位数步行距离,或试验过程中步行距离的变化,或两者都提取。若未提供,且尽可能地,计算各个试验中治疗组与安慰剂组之间这些参数差异的统计学显著性。若可能,通过Meta分析合并数据。
在本次综述更新的检索中未识别出新的试验。本综述共纳入5项试验,涉及365名参与者。所有试验均将Padma 28与安慰剂进行比较,随访至少16周。接受Padma 28治疗的组中,无痛和最大步行距离均显著增加,而安慰剂组无显著变化。总体而言,这些研究呈现了治疗前后治疗组的比较结果,但未对Padma 28组与安慰剂组进行比较。两项研究(193名参与者)中Padma 28和安慰剂治疗后最大步行距离的汇总数据表明,与安慰剂相比,Padma 28组的最大步行距离更高(平均差(MD)95.97 m,95%置信区间(CI)79.07 m至112.88 m,P < 0.00001,极低质量证据)。由于未报告生活质量数据,这些观察到的步行距离变化的临床重要性尚不清楚。对踝臂指数(ABI)无影响:基线至6个月随访期间ABI值的变化MD -0.01,95% CI -0.07至0.05,1项研究,56名参与者,P = 0.72,极低质量证据)。报告了轻度副作用,尤其是胃肠道不适、疲劳和皮疹,但Padma 28组与安慰剂组之间此结果无差异(比值比1.09,95% CI 0.42至2.83,4项研究,231名参与者,P = 0.86,极低质量证据)。
个别试验存在一些证据表明,Padma 28可能至少在短期内(4个月)对增加IC患者的步行距离有效。副作用似乎不是问题。然而,治疗的长期效果未知,步行距离改善的临床意义也值得怀疑。此外,证据质量受到可用试验样本量小、治疗组比较的统计分析报告有限以及与结果相关的相对较高退出率的限制。也就是说,如果患者步行距离未改善则退出。也有发表偏倚的证据。因此,我们认为目前没有足够的证据就Padma 28在IC常规管理中的有效性得出结论。需要进一步设计良好的研究来确定这种草药制剂的真实效果。