Efficacy and safety of berberine in preventing recurrence of colorectal adenomas: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ETHNOPHARMACOLOGICAL RELEVANCE: Berberine(BBR) is a kind of isoquinoline alkaloids extracted from the rhizomes of Coptis chinensis Franch., which was the main active ingredient. Accumulating evidence has shown that it has potential pharmacological effects in preventing the recurrence of colorectal adenomas. AIM OF THE STUDY: The roles of BBR in the overall recurrence of colorectal adenoma have still not been assessed because of the limitations of the available data and the restriction of a single study. Therefore, we evaluated the effectiveness and safety of BBR in preventing the recurrence of colorectal adenomas through a systematic review and meta-analysis of available data. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched four English databases (PubMed (MEDLINE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase and Web of Science) and four Chinese language databases (Chinese Biomedicine (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP) and the WanFang Database) from their inception through October 2020. Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan5.3 software after data extraction and the quality of studies assessment. RESULTS: Three randomized controlled clinical trials were included with 1076 patients. Our results illustrated that 1-year and 2-year supplementation with BBR was associated with lower recurrence rate of colorectal adenoma (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.84, p=0.0001; RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.88, p=0.0004). The relative risk of oral BBR for 1 year and 2 years is not comparable, for 2-year efficacy outcomes were assessed in all participants who had at least one colonoscopy with pathological evaluation after baseline (lots of participants completed the first colonoscopy but discontinued during the second follow-up interval.). Moreover, the results also suggest that BBR had more adverse events than placebo (RR 2.91, 95% CI 1.24 to 6.85, p=0.01). Through the full-text reading, no serious adverse events were observed, and constipation was the most common event which disappears once the drug is discontinued. CONCLUSION: Generally, the present study indicated that BBR has a comparable therapeutic effect on the prevention of colorectal adenomas recurrence. Adverse reactions are worthy of attention which requires additional studies to obtain a precise conclusion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NO: CRD42020209135.

Electroacupuncture for the treatment of functional dyspepsia: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Functional dyspepsia (FD) is a common functional gastrointestinal disease. Acupuncture, including electroacupuncture (EA) is widely used as a complementary and alternative treatment for patients with FD. This study aimed to explore the effectiveness of EA for the treatment of FD. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library) for randomized controlled trials of FD treated by EA from inception to February 3, 2020. Two reviewers will independently screen studies for data extraction and assess the quality and risk of bias. The Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool, RevMan 5.3 software were used for meta-analysis. Data were pooled to calculate relative risk and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of substantial improvement after treatment for dichotomous data and mean differences (SMDs) and 95% CIs for continuous data. RESULTS: Seven randomized clinical trials included 853 patients. This meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of EA alone in the treatment of FD relative to sham-EA or pharmacologic medication (PM). The results showed that EA could significantly improve clinical symptoms. Compared with sham-EA, EA was more effective in reducing symptom scores (SMD -3.44, 95% CI -4.21 to -2.67) and increasing normal slow waves of electrogastrogram (SMD 0.93, 95% CI -0.30 to1.55). When EA was combined with PM, there was no significant difference in reducing symptom scores (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.16), increasing the effective rate of clinical symptoms (risk ratio 1.04, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.13), enhancing the level of plasma motilin (SMD 0.93, 95% CI -0.30 to1.55), and reducing gastric half-emptying time (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.20). The results also showed that there were very few adverse events reported. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests that EA is better than the placebo (sham-EA) in treating FD, and the therapeutic effect of EA on FD is equivalent to that of PM on FD. Compared with PM, EA for FD is safer and has fewer adverse reactions. Despite limitations due to the quality and number of the included studies, EA might be used as an effective and safe treatment for FD.