Suppr超能文献

治疗焦虑症的草药:系统评价和网络荟萃分析。

Medicinal herbs for the treatment of anxiety: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

机构信息

Beijing Research Institute of Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China; Key Laboratory of Famous Doctors and Famous Prescriptions, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China; Key Laboratory for Research and Evaluation of Traditional Chinese Medicine, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China.

Beijing Research Institute of Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China; Key Laboratory of Famous Doctors and Famous Prescriptions, National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China; Key Laboratory for Research and Evaluation of Traditional Chinese Medicine, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China.

出版信息

Pharmacol Res. 2022 May;179:106204. doi: 10.1016/j.phrs.2022.106204. Epub 2022 Apr 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Anxiety disorder is a common psychiatric illness. Medicinal herbs have become a field of interest in the treatment of anxiety. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy and acceptability of all possible medicinal herbs for the treatment of anxiety.

METHODS

A Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted for adults with diagnosed or subthreshold anxiety in randomized controlled trials identified in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, searched between Jan 1, 1987, and Dec 31, 2021. The outcomes included efficacy (measured by endpoint Hamilton Anxiety Scale [HAMA] Scores) and acceptability (discontinuation by ineffectiveness, worsening of the symptoms, or adverse events).

RESULTS

A total of 29 trials were reviewed, comparing 12 medicinal herbs. Silexan (mean difference [MD]: -3.84, 95% credible interval [CrI]: -6.31 to -1.34) displayed a significant effect on anxiety, and possibly benefitted the treatment of depression (standard mean difference [SMD]: -0.37, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.53 to -0.20) and insomnia (SMD: -0.48, 95% CI: -0.76 to -0.21). Kava was found to be an effective anxiolytic (MD: -2.46, 95% CrI: -4.47 to -0.32) but possibly ineffective in patients with generalized anxiety disorder (MD: -0.17, 95% CrI: -2.55 to -1.97). Ginkgo biloba (MD: -4.63, 95% CrI: -9.01 to -0.23) and Withania somnifera (MD: -4.90, 95% CrI: -9.70 to -0.17) were efficacious, as measured by HAMA scores but the trials were limited by their small sample sizes. Galphimia glauca (MD: -1.23, 95% CrI: -4.68 to 2.23) and Manasamitravn Vataka (MD: -1.35, 95% CrI: -7.39 to 4.68) exhibited the same anxiolytic effect as standard treatments, but both were absent from trials that were rated low risk, highlighting that confidence in their ability to provide an anxiolytic effect requires additional study. Conversely, although Passionflower (MD: -4.20, 95% CrI: -8.82 to 0.16) and Saffron (MD: -2.71, 95% CrI: -6.06 to 0.57) did not reduce HAMA scores significantly in the summary network, both were worthy of further study because of support from separate networks. There was insufficient evidence to confirm the effectiveness of Valerian (MD: 0.95, 95% CrI: -6.57 to 8.42) in standard-controlled estimation or the ineffectiveness of Chamomile (MD: 0.54, 95% CrI: -5.13 to 6.25) compared with a placebo for anxiety. Gamisoyo-san (MD: -0.98, 95% CrI: -6.48 to 4.54) and L-theanine (MD: -0.49, 95% CrI: -6.54 to 5.57) did not outperform a placebo for the treatment of anxiety in terms of statistical certainty. All medicinal herbs were well-tolerated and exhibited a good safety profile compared with control groups. When all herbs were compared, there was no statistical evidence to suggest any comparison significantly reduced HAMA scores except Ginkgo biloba vs Kava (MD: -4.41, 95% CrI: -8.32 to -0.35), although Ginkgo biloba was ranked as worst due to its poor tolerability.

CONCLUSION

Medicinal herbs may be promising for the treatment of anxiety. However, these results should be considered preliminary because of the unconvincing sample sizes, together with the potential effectiveness of placebos.

摘要

背景

焦虑障碍是一种常见的精神疾病。草药已成为治疗焦虑的一个研究领域。本研究旨在评估和比较所有可能的草药治疗焦虑的疗效和可接受性。

方法

对 1987 年 1 月 1 日至 2021 年 12 月 31 日在 PubMed、EMBASE、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science 中检索到的成人诊断或亚阈值焦虑的随机对照试验进行贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。结局包括疗效(以终点汉密尔顿焦虑量表[HAMA]评分衡量)和可接受性(因无效、症状恶化或不良事件而停药)。

结果

共纳入 29 项试验,比较了 12 种草药。西莱克桑(平均差值[MD]:-3.84,95%可信区间[CrI]:-6.31 至-1.34)在焦虑方面显示出显著疗效,可能对治疗抑郁(标准均数差值[SMD]:-0.37,95%置信区间[CI]:-0.53 至-0.20)和失眠(SMD:-0.48,95%CI:-0.76 至-0.21)有益。卡瓦被认为是一种有效的抗焦虑药物(MD:-2.46,95%CrI:-4.47 至-0.32),但对广泛性焦虑障碍患者可能无效(MD:-0.17,95%CrI:-2.55 至-1.97)。银杏叶(MD:-4.63,95%CrI:-9.01 至-0.23)和醉茄(MD:-4.90,95%CrI:-9.70 至-0.17)在 HAMA 评分上是有效的,但这些试验的样本量较小。瓜拉纳(MD:-1.23,95%CrI:-4.68 至 2.23)和马纳萨米特拉瓦那(MD:-1.35,95%CrI:-7.39 至 4.68)与标准治疗具有相同的抗焦虑作用,但两者均未出现在风险较低的试验中,这表明需要进一步研究来确定它们提供抗焦虑作用的能力。相反,虽然西番莲(MD:-4.20,95%CrI:-8.82 至 0.16)和藏红花(MD:-2.71,95%CrI:-6.06 至 0.57)在总结网络中没有显著降低 HAMA 评分,但由于来自单独网络的支持,两者都值得进一步研究。没有足够的证据证实缬草(MD:0.95,95%CrI:-6.57 至 8.42)在标准对照估计中的有效性,也没有证据表明甘菊(MD:0.54,95%CrI:-5.13 至 6.25)与安慰剂相比对焦虑无效。加米索约-san(MD:-0.98,95%CrI:-6.48 至 4.54)和 L-茶氨酸(MD:-0.49,95%CrI:-6.54 至 5.57)在治疗焦虑方面与安慰剂相比没有统计学优势。与对照组相比,所有草药均耐受良好,具有良好的安全性。当比较所有草药时,除了银杏叶与卡瓦(MD:-4.41,95%CrI:-8.32 至-0.35)外,没有任何比较有统计学证据表明可显著降低 HAMA 评分,尽管银杏叶由于其较差的耐受性而被列为最差。

结论

草药可能是治疗焦虑的有希望的选择。然而,由于样本量不足,以及安慰剂的潜在有效性,这些结果应被视为初步结果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验