Journal of Traditional Chinese Medical Sciences (Jul 2024)
Efficacy and safety of Jiawei Simiao powder combined with celecoxib for acute gouty arthritis: A meta-analysis
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Jiawei Simiao powder (JWSMP) combined with celecoxib for the treatment of acute gouty arthritis by conducting a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: The Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure Databases, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, Wanfang, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PubMed, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception until December 2023. Continuous variables were analyzed using the mean difference (MD) for analysis, and dichotomous variables were used as risk ratios. Data with similar characteristics were pooled for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using I2. The Cochrane Handbook was used to assess the risk of bias and quality. RevMan 5.3 software was used to perform the meta-analysis. Results: Thirteen RCTs involving 1007 patients were included in the study. The quality of the included studies was low (unclear randomization processes and insufficient blinding reporting). The group receiving JWSMP combined with celecoxib showed significantly lower levels of serum uric acid (SUA, MD = −66.32, 95% confidence interval (CI): −80.97 to −51.67, P < .001), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR, MD = −6.05, 95% CI: −8.29 to −3.82, P < .001), C-reactive protein (CRP, MD = −7.39, 95% CI: −11.15, −3.63, P < .001), and joint pain score (VAS score, MD = −2.14, 95% CI: −2.4 to −1.88, P < .001) compared to celecoxib alone. Additionally, the JWSMP combined group had a higher total effective rate (risk ratio = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.29, P < .001) and fewer adverse compared to celecoxib alone. Conclusions: JWSMP combined with celecoxib is more effective than celecoxib alone in improving the total efficacy rate, alleviating joint pain, and improving SUA, ESR, and CRP levels. JWSMP also reduced the occurrence of adverse events caused by celecoxib. However, the quality of the included studies was low, highlighting the need for further high-quality research with larger sample sizes and robust methodologies, such as double-blind randomization, to confirm these findings.
