Determination of the Combined Effects of Asian Herbal Medicine with Calcium and/or Vitamin D Supplements on Bone Mineral Density in Primary Osteoporosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Our review of 52 RCTs from 5 databases suggests a tendency for notable improvement in BMD when combining herbal medicine with supplements (calcium and vitamin D variants) compared to supplement monotherapy in primary osteoporosis. However, caution is needed in interpreting results due to substantial heterogeneity among included studies. PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether herbal medicine (HM) plus supplements such as calcium (Ca) or vitamin D (Vit.D) improves bone mineral density (BMD) compared to supplements alone in primary osteoporosis (OP) patients. METHODS: We searched 5 databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using HMs with supplements (Ca or Vit.D variants) as interventions for primary OP patients published until August 31, 2022. Meta-analysis using BMD score as the primary outcome was performed using RevMan 5.4 version. Risk of bias in the included studies was assessed useing RoB 2.0 tool. RESULTS: In total, 52 RCTs involving 4,889 participants (1,408 men, 3,481 women) were included, with average BMD scores of 0.690 ± 0.095 g/cm2 (lumbar) and 0.625 ± 0.090 g/cm2 (femoral neck). As a result of performing meta-analysis using BMD scores for all 52 RCTs included in this review, combination of HMs with Ca and Vit.D variants improved the BMD score by 0.08 g/cm2 (lumbar, 38 RCTs, 95% CI: 0.06-0.10, p < 0.001, I2 = 97%) and 0.06 g/cm2 (femoral neck, 19 RCTs, 95% CI: 0.04-0.08, p < 0.001, I2 = 92%)compared to controls. However, statistical significance of the lumbar BMD improvement disappeared after adjusting for potential publication bias. CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that combining of HM and supplements tends to be more effective in improving BMD in primary OP than supplements alone. However, caution is needed in interpretation due to the reporting bias and high heterogeneity among studies, and well-designed RCTs are required in the future.

Difference of stage at cancer diagnosis by socioeconomic status for four target cancers of the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea: Results from the Gwangju and Jeonnam cancer registries.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate whether stage at cancer diagnosis differed according to patient economic status. METHODS: A total of 10,528 patients with cancer of the stomach, colorectum, breast, or cervix, which are target organs of the Korean National Cancer Screening Program (NCSP; fully implemented in 2005) were extracted from population-based cancer registries. The patients were classified into four groups based on socioeconomic status (SES), as determined using their National Health Insurance (NHI) monthly premium at the time of cancer diagnosis. Cancer stage at diagnosis was defined as early (in situ/local) or late stage (regional/distant) based on the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) summary stage. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to estimate the risk of non-local stage using age, residential area, and community deprivation index as covariates. RESULTS: The lowest SES subjects showed significantly higher risks of being diagnosed at a later stage for stomach, colorectal, and female breast cancer, but not for cervical cancer, compared with the highest SES subjects. The estimated ORs were 1.28 (95% CI, 1.10-1.49), 1.29 (95% CI, 1.03-1.61), and 1.35 (95% CI, 1.02-1.81) in the lowest SES subjects with stomach, colorectal, and breast cancer, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, later stage diagnoses of stomach, colon, and female breast cancer are still associated with SES in Korea in the era of the NCSP for the lower SES population.